Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P. and another 1077
offences in connection with elections. In
such case his name has to be struck of the
electoral roll. Section 43 AA provides for
disqualification for a Presidentship and
which includes the disqualification such
as the person is not the elector for any
ward or has not attained the age of 30
years on the date of his nomination. A
person is also disqualified under subsection
(2) for being chosen and for being
President of the municipality, if he is or
has become subject to any disqualification
mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) and for (i)
to (k) of Section 13D. The failure to
disclose the pendency of case is not a
ground of disqualification unless such
case has resulted into the disqualification
for contesting the elections such as
conviction for any offence punishable
with imprisonment under Section 171 (E)
or under Section 17 (F) of the IPC, 1860
in Section 13D (h) (ii) or sentence to
imprisonment for contravention of any of
the order under the Essential
Commodities Act etc. or for an offence,
which is declared by the State
Government to involve such moral
turpitude as to render him unfit to be a
member etc. given in Section 13-D (h) (j)
provided that in case of (j) the
disqualification shall cease on the expiry
of five years.
16. The disqualification of a person
to be elected as a member under Section
12-D and the disqualification to contest as
a President under Section 43-AA can be a
ground to file and declare the election of
the President to be invalid but that these
grounds cannot be the subject matter of
complaint and enquiry by the State
Government in removing a President
under Section 48 of the Act.
17. The second charge related to the
negligence in maintaining the log book of
the use of diesel in the tractor of the
Nagar Panchayat. The charge only related
to the maintenance of log book, which is
the job of the driver and has to be
supervised under Section 60 of the Act by
the Executive Officer. The Act does not
provide for supervision of maintenance of
log book and consumption of diesel to be
made by the Chairman of the Nagar
Panchayat. The State Government neither
charged nor alleged any misuse of the
diesel, purchased by the Nagar Panchayat,
by the petitioner. The charge, therefore,
did not relate to the petitioner and any
case did not prove any misuse of the
property and assets of the Nagar
Panchayat. In respect of third charge the
State Government has found substance in
the report of the District Magistrate that
the auction took place on 30.5.2007,
whereas the amended bylaws for
identifying the parking place were
published on 14.7.2007 and that
Chairman has not given any reply or
evidence in this regard. The Chairman is
not permitted to give any contract either
directly or indirectly and that he had
approved the contract before it was placed
before the Board. The State Government
did not consider the petitioner's reply that
the brother of the petitioner was already
working as a contractor of the Nagar
Panchayat prior to his election. He was
living separately and that notification of
the bylaws, was subsequent to the auction
held after giving due publicity in which
three persons had participated. There was
no finding that the petitioner had obtained
any financial gain or that he had given
any favour to his brother. The burden of
proving was also wrongly shifted upon
the petitioner. No one had challenged
settlement of the contract or that the offer