IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.424 of 2007 Decided on: July 3, 2008. Bal Krishan …Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Writ petitioner was elected as Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Deorighat, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, during the elections of 2005. His election was challenged before the Authorised Officer, under Section 163 read with Section 175 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, by respondent No.3 Ramesh Kumar, who was one of the contestants at the election. The ground of challenge was that the writ petitioner had suppressed information about his conviction for an offence, under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and also with respect to six criminal cases which were pending against him, in different Courts. The Authorised Officer accepted the plea of respondent No.3 Ramesh Kumar and set aside the election. Writ petitioner went in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority, under Section 175 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Appeal was dismissed. Writ petitioner has now approached this Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the orders of the Authorised Officer as also the Appellate Authority. 2. It is alleged that conviction of the writ petitioner was not a disqualification within the meaning of Section 122 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, nor was he required, as per the prescribed nomination form, to give the particulars of the case in which he had been convicted and released on probation as also the pending criminal matters. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, admits that the writ petitioner had been convicted of an offence, under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and released on probation and that that judgment of conviction had been delivered within six years of the holding of the election. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 as also the learned counsel representing respondent No.3. 4. We find no merit in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the writ petitioner had been convicted of an offence, under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. house trespass, after making preparation for causing hurt to any person, or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt or assault or wrongful restraint. It is also not in dispute that conviction of the writ petitioner was ordered within six years of …3… the holding of the election. Section 122 (b) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 says that if a person is convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude and a period of six years has not elapsed since his conviction, he shall be disqualified to contest the election. 5. Also, we find that a declaration is required to be made by a candidate that he is not disqualified to contest election under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 or any other law made by the State legislature. The writ petitioner did not file such a nomination. Admittedly, in the said nomination he did not disclose that he had been convicted of an offence, under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and released on probation, meaning thereby that he made false declaration that he was not disqualified. And making of a false declaration is also a disqualification, per clause (n) of Section 122 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 6. It is for the foregoing reasons that we have stated hereinabove that the writ petition is without merit. Hence, the same is dismissed. CMP Nos.749 of 2007 and 1560 of 2008 In view of the disposal of the main matter, no orders are required to be passed on these applications. Hence, both the applications are disposed of. (R.B. Misra), J. July 3, 2008, (ss) (Surjit Singh ), J.