Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1663 (RAJ)

Munir Khan v. The State of Rajasthan

2002-09-26

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned letter dated 6.12.2001 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) to the petitioner on the application of respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram) by which the petitioner was directed to proceed on the application of respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram) under intimation to respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:- (i) That the petitioner is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Tangla, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal. Through application dated 25.10.2001 (Annex. 1) submitted by respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram) to the Gram Sewak, Gram Panchayat, Tangla, the respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram) requested to supply copies of certain bill vouchers pertaining to the development work in the year 2000- 2001. (ii) The further case of the petitioner is that on 5.11.2001, the petitioner held meeting of the Gram Sabha in which proposal regarding supply of certified copies of some documents to the villagers was considered and in that meeting it was decided that certified copies of certain documents would not be made available to the villagers. Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 5.11.2001 is marked as Annex. 3. (iii) That thereafter respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) through letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) sought explanation of the petitioner as well as asked him to do the needful on the application of respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram). Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. 3. In this writ petition the validity of letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) issued by the respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) has been assailed on various grounds and for that the petitioner has placed reliance on Rules 321 to 328 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1996'). 4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 and a separate reply was also filed by respondent No. 4. It was averred by the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner was under obligation to supply copies and he has also placed reliance on the Rules just mentioned above. 4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 and a separate reply was also filed by respondent No. 4. It was averred by the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner was under obligation to supply copies and he has also placed reliance on the Rules just mentioned above. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have averred that the petitioner has a false apprehension that he was going to be suspended and it has further been submitted by the respondents No. 1 to 3 that it is incorrect to say that there is no provision to issue copies of the required documents. Hence, this writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard both and perused the record. 6. From perusing the letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) issued by respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) to the petitioner, following facts have come in picture : (i) That as per the application (Annex. 1) of respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram), the petitioner has not supplied copies of the documents demanded by him in respect of development work of the Panchayat. (ii) That the complaint was made to Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram) also sent a notice through his lawyer, copy of which has been attached with letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2). (iii) That the petitioner was directed to do the needful as per the Rules under intimation to respondent No. 3 (Vikash Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Jayal). 7. In my opinion by perusing letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) issued by the Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Jayal, it cannot be imagined that the respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) was going to put the petitioner under suspension and was going to take any legal action against him. 8. The contents of letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) has been quoted above and nowhere in letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) issued by the respondent No. 3, Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal it has been mentioned by the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner should supply copies to the respondent No. 4 (Gopal Ram) positively, but the petitioner was directed to take action in accordance with law. It may be stated here that R. 321 to 328 of the Rules of 1996 prescribed procedure for inspection of records and grant of copies. It may be stated here that R. 321 to 328 of the Rules of 1996 prescribed procedure for inspection of records and grant of copies. Therefore, intention of respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) was only that keeping in mind Rules 321 to 328 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner should do the needful. Apart from this, if he has any grievance against the show cause letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) issued by respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal), he should approach the respondents and he could also file reply there. Further more simply in show cause notice, this Court should not entertain writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the prayer that the letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annex. 2) issued by respondent No. 3 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jayal) to the petitioner, be quashed neither appears to be reasonable nor proper and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Cost made easy.Writ petition dismissed. *******