31.7.2008 Present: Mr Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A. G. for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.5 CWP No.1239/2008 The petitioner contested the election for the post of Pradhan and he was required to fill-up certain formalities and in one of the columns in the form, petitioner was required to furnish pendency of criminal cases, if any, the petitioner replied as ‘Nil’. However, in the course of time, the petitioner was elected as Pradhan. The election was challenged by one of the candidates by filing election petition, which was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed by an order dated 23rd April, 2008 as contained in Annexure P-9. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner while explaining before this Court for the omission for not furnishing the details of his pending criminal cases, as far as the case pending at Mohali under Sections 420, 424, 471 & 120-B IPC, he submitted that in fact the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender by the Punjab State, whereas he has relied upon the Himachal Pradesh Offenders Act, 1969. According to him, the petitioner has not been declared habitual offender under the Himachal Pradesh Offenders Act, 1969. Therefore, it was not required to mention the same in the column of nomination paper. It is admitted fact that the petitioner fails to mention the criminal case registered under the provisions of IPC at Mohali. In the circumstances, the two authorities rightly held that the petitioner was not competent to contest the election and has rightly quashed the election to the post of Pradhan. Though, few further contentions were made, however, because of preliminary grounds that the petitioner intentionally did not mention about the pendency of the criminal cases, therefore, we need not to go further to consider the same. In light of the above, no interference is warranted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications. ( Jagdish Bhalla ), C.J. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. July 31, 2008 (rana)