S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner and respondent No. 5 along with other candidates contested election for the post of Member, Zila Parishad from sector No. 15, Kanke, Ranchi. The election was held in the year, 2010 and respondent No. 5 was declared elected. The petitioner secured second highest number of votes. From information revealed through application under RTI, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 5 had supplied wrong information in as much as, he gave false declaration that no criminal case was pending against him. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application on 24.08.2012 before the District Panchayat Raj Officer for termination of membership of respondent No. 5. A proceeding vide Misc. Case No. 2 of 2012 -13 was initiated in which notice was issued to respondent No. 5. The District Election Officer -cum -Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.09.2012 held that respondent No. 5 had suppressed material information and thus, violated section 120 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. Subsequently, the State Election Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to take steps for lodging a criminal case for offences under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, Kanke P.S. Case No. 182 of 2012 was lodged on 06.12.2012 for offence under section 177 IPC r/w section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 r/w section 120 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. In the said case, the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence on 27.08.2008. However, the respondents have not taken any action for termination of membership of the respondent No. 5 as member of Zila Parishad.
(2.) SUNIL Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the misconduct committed by the respondent No. 5 would be covered under section 152 and 153 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. After an enquiry when it was found that the respondent No. 5 indulged in corrupt practices and criminal case has been lodged against him, it is the duty of the State Election Commission to terminate the membership of respondent No. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies on decision in "Vijay Kumar Chaudhary vs. State Election Commissioner" reported in Laws (Pats) -2009 -9 -25. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the State Election Commission -respondent No. 2 raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that, State Election Commission has no power under the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 to declare a returned candidate disqualified. The election of elected candidate can be challenged only by filing election petition. The Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 provides a forum for challenging the election of a candidate.
(3.) IN the writ petition though, the petitioner has sought as many as 8 directions, the main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that inspite of an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner who found that the respondent No. 5 violated section 120 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act and a criminal case has been registered in which cognizance has been taken by the trial court, the membership of respondent No. 5 has not been cancelled/terminated by the respondents particularly, the State Election Commission.;