JUDGMENT 1. - Matter comes up on application no.35535/12 filed by two applicants namely; Shri Ramavatar Singh Gurjar and Mula Ram Gurjar for their impleadment as party-respondent nos.8 and 9 to the present writ petition. 2. Shri S.R. Surana, learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that a public interest litigation has been filed by the applicants before this Court alleging preparation of forged muster roll of Rs. 10 lacs for the work of Johad Khudai Gandarawali whereas only Rs. 5 lacs was sanctioned and work of Rs. 2 lacs has been done. This was an act of cheating and embezzlement by the petitioner. Criminal investigation was also conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau and the petitioner has been detained in jail. The D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.3503/2012 is pending before this Court regarding the same dispute. 3. It is contended that the applicants are necessary party because it is on their complaint dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure-1) that the petitioner, Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Kankariya, Panchayat Samiti Khetri, District Jhunjhunu was proceeded against in an enquiry under Section 38. The enquiry was conducted under Rule 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and it is thereafter that impugned order dated 16.7.2012 (Annexure-9) has been passed whereby the petitioner, the Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was censored by the Government and was declared disqualified for a period of 5 years to be elected in Panchayati Raj institutions. 4. Shri S.R. Surana, learned senior counsel has referred to Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and argued that sub-rule (1) thereof provides that before taking any action under sub-section (1) of Section 38, where on its own motion or upon any complaint, the State Government may ask the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer to get a preliminary enquiry done and send his report to the State Government within one month. It is not a matter wherein the Government has initiated action against the petitioner on its own motion, rather equiry against the petitioner was started on the basis of complaint of the petitioner. It is not a matter wherein the Government has initiated action against the petitioner on its own motion, rather equiry against the petitioner was started on the basis of complaint of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel also referred to Rule 23(1) which inter alia provides that whenever it is represented to or otherwise brought to the notice of Chief Executive Officer in case of Panch/Sarpanch who has been declared to be duly elected or who has been appointed under any provisions of the Act, was not qualified, or was disqualified, for such election or appointment at the time when he was so elected or appointed or has thereafter become disqualified for continuing as such member, the competent authority shall draw up clearly and precisely the alleged qualification or disqualification forming the subject of the representation and forthwith send a notice to such member. The words "otherwise brought to the notice of Chief Executive Officer" denotes the complaints made by persons like the applicants and, therefore, the applicants are necessary party to these proceedings. 5. Opposing the application for impleadment, Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the order of coordinate bench of this Court in Nand Ram Kharadia v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11302 of 2012, decided on 7.9.2012 , wherein the coordinate bench of this Court in similar circumstances rejected the application of an applicant observing that "this Court is also of the view that the State Government is author of the order impugned and is represented by their counsel and merely because the applicant being ward member holding charge of the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, that may not give him a right to be heard as a proper or necessary party in the present proceedings." The applicant in that case was also a complainant. It was on his own complaint that the enquiry was made by the Government and order impugned was passed. Although, additionally, it is also a fact that the applicant in that case was also a Ward Member, who was given charge of Sarpanch. Even then, he was not held to be a necessary or proper party. 6. It was on his own complaint that the enquiry was made by the Government and order impugned was passed. Although, additionally, it is also a fact that the applicant in that case was also a Ward Member, who was given charge of Sarpanch. Even then, he was not held to be a necessary or proper party. 6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the arguments aforesaid, it may be observed that this Court relying on the aforesaid judgement in past in Nand Ram Kharadia, supra have in several similar matters rejected the application of the complainants for being impleaded as party. Reference on this question may be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 407 , where a elected office bearer of the Municipal Board made a complaint against present President of the Municipal Board. The Government on the basis of enquiry, removed the present President of the Municipal Board. Argument before the Supreme Court was that whether the Ex-President, at whose instance action was taken against the present President, was necessary party. The Supreme Court dealing with that argument and referring to number of previous case laws held as under: "58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. 59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case, he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hand on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. 59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case, he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hand on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. claim devoid of reasons. 60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. 7. The division bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar Garg & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., RLW 2005 (1) Raj. 478 has dealt with the similar argument where allegation against the elected lady Sarpanch was that she indulged in forgery and preparation of forged documents. Considering the question of locus standi of the complainant, the division bench in para 6 of the judgement held as under: "6. So far as the ground of locus standi is concerned, it may be mentioned that once the complaint is made, the business of the complainant is over. He is no more person to make any interference as the complaint is the subject matter of enquiry between the party concerned and the Government and no one has a right to make an interference. The complainant is only an informer and the business has been completed by the appellants, while making complaint against the respondent no.3 and they have no interest left in the matter to get acquaintance with the further development of the proceedings. Apart from that, the State Government has always inherent jurisdiction to revoke its earlier order in view of the subsequent events taking place in the matter. Apart from that, the State Government has always inherent jurisdiction to revoke its earlier order in view of the subsequent events taking place in the matter. In this connection, reference of Bharat Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan & others, 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 270 and Mahadev Prasad Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., RLR 1990 (1) page 157 may be made. 8. In Karmi Ram Purohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 64 , an application was submitted by the complainant in a writ petition filed by a Sarpanch, challenging order of suspension, against whom enquiry was initiated by the Government on allegation of receiving illegal gratification by person, who made complaint against him to the Government. Relying on the division bench judgement in Surendra Kumar Garg, supra, it was held that he was neither necessary nor proper party to the writ petition. 9. In Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., RLR 1985 page 644 , the Single Bench of this Court presided by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal, (as His Lordship then was) dealt with a similar issue where application for impleadment was made by applicants on whose complaint preliminary enquiry was held against the Sarpanch resulting into his suspension, holding that they were neither necessary, nor proper party. His Lordship held as under: "2.In the writ petition the petitioner who is Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, has challenged the validity of the order passed by the State Government whereby the petitioner has been suspended from the office of Sarpanch. The appellants are seeking to be impleaded as parties on the ground that they had made a complaint against the petitioner and on the basis of the said complaint a preliminary enquiry was held and the impugned order of suspension was passed. It may be that the applicants made the complaint on the basis of which the impugned order of suspension was passed. But in so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the necessary and proper party can only be the State Government which has passed the impugned order. The applicants can neither be regarded as necessary parties, nor they could be regarded as proper parties. The application is, therefore, dismissed. 10. But in so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the necessary and proper party can only be the State Government which has passed the impugned order. The applicants can neither be regarded as necessary parties, nor they could be regarded as proper parties. The application is, therefore, dismissed. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, in spite of the fact that Rule 22 and 23 have referred to cognizance of a compliant received from a private person by the Government and initiation of enquiry against the elected Sarpanch on that basis, a complainant cannot be considered as either necessary or proper party because once the Government has on the basis of the complaint initiated the enquiry and placed the elected Sarpanch or other office bearers under suspension and passed the order of removal or disqualification, if and when such elected Sarpanch/office bearer approaches this Court in writ petition, it is a lis essentially between him and the Government, as held by the Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir, supra. A complainant therefore cannot be considered as necessary or proper party because it is then for the Government to defend such order. 11. In view of above, this application for impleadment is dismissed. 12. List the writ petition on 20.2.2013. Interim order is continue.Application Dismissed. *******