Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Basant Lal vs State Of H.P on 17 April, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 1062/2025
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 07-11-2024 in LPA
No. 361/2024 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
Shimla]
BASANT LAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 91903/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS AND IA No. 91902/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 17-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Amrendra Kumar Choubey, Adv.
Ms. Sindhu Prabha Jha, Adv.
Mr. Uddeshy Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Amrit Anunay, Adv.
Mr. Victor Dissha, Adv.
Ms. Shloka Vaidalingam, Adv.
Mr. Shivan Vaidalingam, Adv.
Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a judgment dated 07.11.2024
passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court,
affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge with respect
Signature Not Verified
to
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.04.22
disqualification of the petitioner for holding the post of
10:25:28 IST
Reason:
Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Pangna, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi.
1
3. The facts are broadly admitted. The petitioner was declared
elected on 17.01.2021. Respondent No.3, who stood in third
position in the same elections, challenged the petitioner’s
election through an Election Petition, filed before the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate-cum-Authorised Officer. The plea taken by
Respondent No. 3 was that the petitioner deliberately did not
disclose pendency of the criminal case registered against him vide
FIR No. 114/2017 under Sections 147, 447, 427 read with Section 149
IPC and also under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act,
1927. Notably, the above-stated case was pending before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karsog.
4. It is not in dispute that in the declaration furnished by the
petitioner in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayats and
Municipalities Elections (Disclosure of specified information by
the candidates) Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter, ‘2004 Regulations’)
he specifically averred that there was no criminal case registered
or pending against him. The Election Tribunal, having instead
found that a criminal case was pending trial against the petitioner
where the punishment upto 2 years could be awarded, declared the
petitioner’s election as null and void.
5. The aggrieved petitioner firstly filed an appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellant Authority, which was dismissed on
01.05.2023. Subsequently, he approached the High Court in CWP No.
2854/2023. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition on 16.10.2024, inter alia, holding that even though
non-disclosure or false disclosure was not a specific ground of
disqualification under Section 122 of the Himachal Pradesh
2
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter, ‘1994 Act’) but the
Regulations formulated in exercise of powers under Section 122 of
that Act mandatorily require disclosure of such information. It
was further held that the 2004 Regulations qualify a subordinate
legislation and were, thus, binding, similar to the principal Act
and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Single Judge further
held that the concealment of material facts by the petitioner
amounted to ‘corrupt practice’ within the meaning of Section 175(1)
(b) of the 1994 Act, which was another valid ground to declare his
election null and void.
6. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed an intra-court appeal
which has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court
vide the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2024.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who, at the
outset, submits that in the above-mentioned criminal case, the
petitioner has now been acquitted. He also points out that vide an
order dated 02.02.2025, the petitioner has been disqualified from
contesting elections for a period of 6 years, due to the previous
non-disclosure regarding the aforementioned criminal case.
8. On merits, counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph 14
of the impugned judgment where the High Court has acknowledged that
the 1994 Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not specifically
provide for disclosure of a pending criminal case by a candidate
contesting for the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat.
9. Having perused the submissions supplemented with the record,
we fail to find any merit as far as the petitioner’s challenge to
the impugned order(s) and judgment(s) of the High Court are
3
concerned. We say so for the reason that the Regulations framed by
the State Election Commission have rightly been held by the High
Court to be a piece of subordinate legislation and, thus, the
candidates contesting the Panchayat election were obligated to
comply with the provisions of the same.
10. In any case, the misconduct attributed to the petitioner does
not require reference to any provision of the Act, Rules or
Regulations. It is a case where he deliberately filed a false
affidavit/undertaking concealing the factum of pendency of criminal
case against him. The concealment of that material fact per se was
a valid ground to annul his election.
11. Turning lastly to the order dated 02.02.2025, by way of which
the petitioner has been precluded from contesting any elections for
the next 6 years, we do not want to express any opinion on this
order’s merits as it is a subsequent event which was not subject
matter of the challenge before the High Court. That being said, in
light of the fact that the petitioner is stated to have been
acquitted in the subject-criminal case, it seems to us that barring
him for 6 years from contesting elections is prima facie harsh and
disproportionate punishment to the nature of allegations attributed
to him. We hasten to clarify that these are only prima facie
observations at this stage. The petitioner, if so advised, may
challenge that order before the High Court in the appropriate
proceedings. Since we have not expressed any final opinion on
merits of that order, we wholly leave it to the High Court’s
discretion to take an appropriate view of the matter.
12. Consequently, with a view to avoid irreversible hardship to
4
the petitioner, operation of the order dated 02.02.2025 is hereby
stayed for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to contest the
election of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, if it is held in the
near future. This stay shall operate for a period of 8 weeks from
today to enable the petitioner to approach the High Court meanwhile
by way of appropriate proceedings.
13. With these directions, the Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
5
[ad_1]
Source link