ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Under challenge in this petition for a writ of quo warranto is the right of the respondent no. 5 - Returned Candidate (hereafter 'RC') to hold post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gehnoli, Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa, District Dausa despite his election on the said post on the ground that he was and is statutorily ineligible to hold the said post.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the RC was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gehnoli, Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa, District Dausa for the period 2000 to 2005. A criminal case no. 216/2003 was registered against him for the offences under Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, wherein he was arrested on 14.2.2003 and remained in police/judicial custody for more than 6 months, he was placed under suspension and vide order dated 7.6.2003 charges were framed by the trial court against him for the said offences. On his suspension yet being revoked by the State Government, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6653/2003 vide order dated 2.12.2003 he was restrained from functioning as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gehnoli, Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa, District Dausa. Subsequently another Cr. Case no. 16/2009 was registered against the RC, wherein also vide order dated 13.1.2009, charges were framed against him by the trial court for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The offences in the cases registered against the RC in which he has been charged by the trial court and is facing trial, are admittedly punishable for more than 5 years imprisonment. However, concealing these material facts in his declaration, the RC filled nomination form for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gehnoli Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa, District Dausa held in the year 2015 despite being statutorily ineligible won and declared elected. He took charge. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Collector Dausa to set-aside the election of the RC as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gehnoli Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa. That representation was rejected on the ground that the State Government or for that matter the Collector had no power to remove of a duly elected Sarpanch for his purportedly ineligibility to be so elected. Hence this petition, essentially one for quo warranto, prayer loosely made notwithstanding.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that due to framing of charges against the RC for the offences under Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC in Cr. Case No. 216/2003 and for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC in Cr. Case no. 16/2009 punishable for more than 5 years prior to the election of 2015 for the post of Sarpanch, the RC was ineligible to contest the election. Yet he so did and was elected. But for reason of underlying ineligibility has no legal authority to hold the post.;