Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1997 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Pathak

2021-10-22

PRAKASH GUPTA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

body2021
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants- respondents (for short, 'the appellants') against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby ex-parte interim order has been passed in favour of the respondent- petitioner (for short, 'the respondent') and the order dated 9.4.2021, whereby the application filed by the appellants to vacate the interim order dated 16.12.2020 has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the respondent was elected as a Chairperson of Nagar Palika, Pushkar. On the basis of a complaint submitted against him by the complainant, a factual report was sought by the appellants from Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Pushkar. The Executive Officer after preparing the report, sent the same to the appellants. Subsequently a second complaint was submitted against the respondent by the same complainant to the Minister concerned, on the basis of which a report was called from the Executing Officer. The Executive Officer conducted a summary enquiry, prepared the report and sent the same to the appellants. Thereafter the appellants constituted a Three Members' Enquiry Committee, which called for a detailed report from the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer again conducted the summary enquiry and submitted his report to the Committee. Subsequently, the Deputy Director vide his letter dated 8.10.2020 sought a factual report from the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Pushkar. The Executive Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report. Despite that the appellants served a notice dated 2.12.2020 to the respondent, which was challenged by the respondent by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14807/2020 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. After hearing the arguments, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 16.12.2020 while issuing notice to the respondents, stayed effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 2.12.2020. Thereafter the appellants put in appearance and filed an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.4.2021. Hence, this appeal. Thereafter the appellants put in appearance and filed an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.4.2021. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that under Section 39(1) of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act of 2009'), a preliminary enquiry was being conducted for the alleged misconduct of the respondent and therefore, a notice was issued to him and his explanation was sought, but without any reason, the show cause notice was stayed by the learned Single Judge, contrary to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Somya Gurjar Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6485/2021). He further submits that after conducting preliminary enquiry, a Judicial Enquiry was to be conducted by a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge under Section 39 (4) of the Act of 2009. However, the learned Single Judge without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, stayed the show cause notice ex-parte and arbitrarily dismissed the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. On this count, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set-aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that thrice enquiry was conducted by the Executive Officer, but nothing was found proved against the respondent. The respondent is the member of opposition party and with malafide intention, the impugned notice has been issued against him. He further submits that the writ petition was directed to be listed for final disposal at admission stage on 13.5.2021, but subsequently the matter was adjourned and the next date in the matter is 26.10.2021. The impugned orders are just and proper and no interference therewith is required by this Court. Heard. Considered. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that this appeal has been filed against the interim orders and the writ petition is pending for final disposal before the learned Single Judge and the next date in the matter is 26.10.2021, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. However, we request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition finally within two weeks from today. The special appeal stands disposed of accordingly. However, we request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition finally within two weeks from today. The special appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Consequent upon the disposal of the appeal, the stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.