SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
(2.) The petitioner was elected as a Ward Member of the Ward No.3, Panchayat Samiti, Maulasar, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur in the elections held in the year 2015. The respondent No.4 Shri Rajendra who was a contesting Ward Member, filed an election petition to challenge the election of the petitioner before the District Judge, Merta City which in due course came to be transferred to the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge, Didwana. The principal ground of challenge laid to the petitioner's election was that while filling the nomination form, the petitioner concealed the fact of the charges framed against him by the criminal court for offences under Sections 323/34, 427/34 and 452/34 of the IPC and thus, he was suffering a disqualification in terms of Section 19(gg) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. While filing reply to the election petition, the petitioner did not dispute the fact that when he contested the election, the charges as aforesaid had been framed against him by the competent court. However, the defence of the petitioner was that the competent court had granted benefit of probation to the petitioner while deciding the case by judgment dated 08.08.2016 and thus, he was entitled to the umbrella of protection provided by section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the disqualification as aforesaid would not operate against him. The Election Tribunal, proceeded to hold that the petitioner was disqualified from contesting the election because as on the date of submitting the nomination form, he was carrying the statutory bar prescribed under Section Section 19(gg) of the Panchayati Raj Act. Accordingly, the election petition was allowed and the petitioner's election on the post of Ward Member was set aside vide judgment dated 22.05.2018. The said judgment dated 22.05.2018 passed by the Election Tribunal is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Ms. Varsha Bissa, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that, since, by the date when the election petition came to be decided, the criminal case had been decided in favour of the petitioner, he is unquestionably entitled to continue as a Ward Member. As per Ms. Bissa, the petitioner was granted benefit of probation by the trial court while deciding the criminal case and thus, the protective umbrella of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act would save the petitioner from the consequence of disqualification. She thus urged that the writ petition should be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2018 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge, Didwana be set aside.;