PATNA, India, July 1 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 27:
Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned GA-5 for the State and Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the State Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission').
2. With the consent of the parties, this writ application is being decided at this stage itself.
3. The petitioner has moved before this Court for the following reliefs:-
(i) For quashing of the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, communicated to the petitioner under memo no.2397 dated 02.06.2025, issued under the signature of the respondent no.3, whereby and whereunder the respondent no.2 has been pleased to declare the petitioner disqualified to continue as a member of Arwal Block Panchayat Samiti on the ground that vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar, DistrictAurangabad, the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he was further convicted and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year notwithstanding the fact that the order of conviction and sentence was already stayed by a competent court of appeal vide its order dated 07.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024. (ii) For a declaration that if it is the settled law that in case of suspension of conviction and sentence both by a court of appeal, the disqualification is wiped out and this issue has already been decided by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 is not only misconceived and illegal rather he has committed contempt of the court if he has not shown respect to the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in his impugned order. (iii) For any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 02.06.2025, passed by the respondent no.2, which was communicated to the petitioner under memo no.2397 dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-5 to the writ application) is completely illegal and in teeth of the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Krishna Kumari Yadav vs. State Election Commission (Panchayat) & Ors. reported in (2025) 1 BLJ 109. Hence, he prays that the order be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated to the post of member of Arwal Block Panchayat Samiti. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for Commission (supra) and he has particularly highlighted paragraphs-20 to 26 of the said judgmentthe petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Krishna Kumari Yadav vs. State Election
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTAwNjkjMjAyNSMxI04=-dtDzUi1yrgw=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
