IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23669 of 2008 Between: Samala Janaki Ramulu S/o. Balaiah R/o. Challur Village, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Munigadapa Kanakaiah S/o. Sathaiah R/o. Challur Village, Rajapet (M), Nalgonda District. 2 The Returning Officer,Gram Panchayat Elections Challur Village Stage-I, Namely Sri Janaiah, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Deputy District Election Authority, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 4 The District Election Authority, rep. by District Collector, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to the O.P.No.14 of 2006 dt. 20.10.2008 on the ﬁle of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Bhongir, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for Respondent No.1:MR. N. SREEDHAR REDDY. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4s: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : *THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.23669 of 2008 % 06.11.2008 Between: Samala Janaki Ramulu, S/o. Balaiah, Aged;26 years, occ:Weaver,R/o. Challur village, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. .... PETITIONER AND 1 Munigadapa Kanakaiah S/o. Sathaiah R/o. Challur Village, Rajapet (M), Nalgonda District. 2 The Returning Officer,Gram Panchayat Elections Challur Village Stage-I, Namely Sri Janaiah, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Deputy District Election Authority, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 4 The District Election Authority, rep. by District Collector, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for Respondent No.1:MR. N. SREEDHAR REDDY. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4s: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23669 of 2008 ORDER: The elections to the Gram Panchayat of Challur Village, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District were held on 02.08.2006. The petitioner and the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled nominations for Ward No.10 of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner raised an objection for the nomination of the ﬁrst respondent on the ground that he was convicted for an oﬀence, in C.C.No.587 of 2001 by the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir and was sentenced to pay ﬁne of Rs.600/-. The nomination of the ﬁrst respondent was rejected by the Returning Oﬃcer, the second respondent herein, on the ground that he was convicted for an oﬀence, in C.C.No.587 of 2001. The appeal preferred by the ﬁrst respondent before the third respondent was also dismissed. Thereby, the ﬁrst respondent was kept out of fray of election and the petitioner was declared as elected. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled O.P.No.14 of 2006 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir challenging the rejection of his nomination. The petitioner was impleaded as the ﬁrst respondent. Through its order, dated 20.10.2008, the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the O.P. and has set aside the election of the petitioner. Direction was also issued to respondents 2 to 4 herein to take steps to ﬁll the resultant vacancy. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge. Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except stating that he preferred an appeal before the Court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Nalgonda against the sentence and conviction in C.C.No.587 of 2001, the first respondent did not place the copy of the judgment and in that view of the matter, there was absolutely no illegality in rejection of the nomination of the ﬁrst respondent. He contends that for the lapses on the part of the ﬁrst respondent, the election of the petitioner cannot be set aside. Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, who ﬁled caveat, on behalf of the ﬁrst respondent submits that his client did not incur disqualiﬁcation under Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) and even if the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2003 was to be ignored, the disqualiﬁcation under Section 19 of the Act is not attracted. He submits that when it was categorically pleaded by the ﬁrst respondent that the conviction and sentence against him were set aside in appeal, the third respondent ought to have examined the matter and that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir had corrected the injustice meted out to the ﬁrst respondent. It is a matter of record that the ﬁrst respondent was convicted for the oﬀences under Sections 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. by the trial Court in C.C.No.587 of 2001, through judgment, dated 09.09.2003. The nomination of the ﬁrst respondent was rejected only on the basis of the judgment in C.C.No.587 of 2001. In the appeal preferred by him before the third respondent, the ﬁrst respondent pleaded that Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2003 was ﬁled against the judgment in C.C.No.587 of 2001 and that the same was allowed. That, however, was not taken into account and the third respondent rejected the appeal ﬁled against the order for rejection of nomination. The only controversy in the O.P. is as to whether the rejection of nomination of the ﬁrst respondent by the second respondent was proper and legal. The conviction and sentence ordered against the ﬁrst respondent by the trial Court were set aside in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2003. It is urged that even if the order of the lower appellate Court is not taken into account and the conviction and sentence were to remain, the petitioner did not incur disqualiﬁcation. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine the scope of the relevant provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, which reads as under: 19. Disqualiﬁcation of candidates:- (1) A person who has been convicted by a Criminal Court,- (a) for an oﬀence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; or (b) for an oﬀence involving moral delinquency; shall be disqualiﬁed for election as a Member for a period of ﬁve years from the date of conviction or where he is sentenced to imprisonment while undergoing sentence and after a period of ﬁve years from the date of expiration thereof. From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that a person would incur disqualification from being elected or holding an elected post, if he was convicted for an oﬀence involving “moral delinquency”. Sentence becomes immaterial in such cases. Disqualiﬁcation would also occur, if a person is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. In this category of cases, the nature of oﬀence i.e. whether it involves “moral delinquency” becomes insignificant. It is not in dispute that the conviction of the ﬁrst respondent by the trial Court was for the oﬀences under Sections 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. That was in relation to a quarrel among the neighbours. No question of moral delinquency is involved in it. Further, the sentence was not of imprisonment for two years; and it was only ﬁne of Rs.600/-. Therefore, even assuming that the conviction against the ﬁrst respondent in C.C.No.587 of 2003 remained, he did not incur disqualification. The second respondent rejected the nomination of the ﬁrst respondent on a complaint made by the petitioner on the basis of C.C.No.587 of 2001. He did not even verify whether Section 19(1) is attracted at all, much less whether any appeal was preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.587 of 2001 and if so, the result. It is rather unfortunate that even the third respondent, the appellate authority also did not verify the relevant facts when the ﬁrst respondent speciﬁcally pleaded that the Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2003 preferred by him against the judgment in C.C.No.587 of 2001 was allowed. Assuming that there was any lapse on the part of the ﬁrst respondent in producing the copy judgment of the lower appellate Court, the third respondent ought to have veriﬁed the matter with reference to Section 19 of the Act. Viewed from any angle, the rejection of the nomination of the ﬁrst respondent cannot be sustained in law. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir had examined the matter from correct perspective and no interference is warranted with the order in the O.P. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.11.2008. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Returning Officer,Gram Panchayat Elections Challur Village Stage-I, Namely Sri Janaiah, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Deputy District Election Authority, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 4 The District Election Authority, rep. by District Collector, Nalgonda District. 5.2CCs to the Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court Building, Hyderabad (OUT). 6.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}