1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.167/2005 Bhura Ram vs. State of Raj. and others. Date : 11.1.2005 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for petitioner. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the State Government by which it has been conveyed to the District Election Officer by letter dated 6.1.2005 (Annex.2) informing that the persons named in the annexed list along with the petitioner have been disqualified under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the “Act”). The petitioner apprehends that because of this order, the petitioner will not be eligible to contest the election despite the fact that the petitioner is presently holding the post of Pradhan. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order under Section 38 of the Act was passed by the Government on 5.12.2001 (Annex.3) but the petitioner was not having knowledge of this order dated 5.12.2001 and the petitioner came to know of this order when the petitioner came to know of the letter dated 6.1.2005 (Annex.2). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, for the same charge, for 2 not handing over charge of Sarpanch in pursuance of the orders dated 10.1.1991 and 20.1.1991, criminal case was lodged against him in which as back as on 14.6.1995, the petitioner was convicted but was given benefit of probation by the trial court, therefore, the petitioner, if could have been declared disqualified, then he could have been declared disqualified from 14.6.1995. That disqualification could have been operative upto the period of five years which could have ended in the year 2000 but in view of the order of the State Government dated 5.12.2001 (Annex.3), the petitioner will not be eligible to contest the election which are going to be held in January, 2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the criminal case was lodged against the petitioner in which he could have been punished and the Court found that the petitioner is entitled for probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, then for the same charge, the petitioner could not have been proceeded against by the authorities under Section 38 of the Act and the State Government could not have passed the order dated 5.12.2001. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order against the petitioner was passed on 3 5.12.2001 and that order is sought to be challenged after more than three years in the year 2005. The explanation given by the petitioner that he had no knowledge of the said order cannot be accepted. Since the petitioner is challenging the order dated 5.12.2001 after such an inordinate delay, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed merely on this ground alone. Accordingly, this writ petition having no merit is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya