ORDER : 1. Upon the grave insistence made by learned counsel for the petitioner for disposal of the present petition today itself, the same is being decided finally today itself. 2. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, and humbly cost and; (A) By an appropriate writ or Quo Warranto, or any other writs in the nature thereof the impugned orders dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-1) and dated 08.06.2022 (Annexure-2), passed by respondent Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur (Respondent no.2), consisting of illegal appointment of respondent no.5 Shri Yogesh Acharya, as Municipal Commissioner, may very kindly be declared, violative of provisions of the Rajasthan Municipality Service Rules 1963 and Rajasthan Municipal Services (Administrative & Technical) Rules of 1963 and so also violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, consequently the illegal appointment of respondent no.4 may kindly be ordered to be cancelled, forthwith, with further direction to respondents, not to appoint any non-eligible person on said post. (B) By, an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent no.1 to 3, may kindly be restrained, from appointing any non-eligible person, on the post of Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer, and the post may kindly be ordered to be strictly filled, in accordance with law, while adhering the provisions of Rules of 1963 or any other law framed by government, through a regular promotion process. (C) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a resident of Barmer District, while presently residing at Jodhpur. The petitioner is raising an issue about illegal appointment of private respondent No.5-Yogesh Acharya, on administrative post of Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer. 3.1. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a resident of Barmer District, while presently residing at Jodhpur. The petitioner is raising an issue about illegal appointment of private respondent No.5-Yogesh Acharya, on administrative post of Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer. 3.1. Various complaints, alleging serious misconduct, was filed against respondent no.5, and upon receiving such complaints, a department enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director (Regional), Jodhpur; however, pending the departmental proceedings, upon receiving a report dated 05.08.2020, wherein it was observed that prima facie, the respondent no.5 was found to have indulged in corrupt practices, irregularities and had also caused the revenue loss to the State Exchequer, the respondent No.5 was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.09.2020, in exercise of the powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. 3.2. The respondent-Department has passed an office order dated 01.06.2022, whereby, as per the petitioner, ad hoc charge of the post of Municipal Commissioner of different Municipal Bodies, has been given to Administrative Officers, holding the post of SDO, Tehsildar or Executive Officer; whereas, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.5, despite not holding any of the said posts, at the relevant time, was given such charge of the post of Municipal Commissioner. 3.3. The respondent no.5, who, at the relevant time, was holding the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, was given additional charge of the post of Municipal Commissioner, Barmer, on the ground of administrative exigencies, vide order dated 20.05.2022 for a period of 15 days, which was further extended from time to time, vide, amongst others, order dated 08.06.2022 by Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local Self, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3.4. The petitioner, seeking redressal of his grievance regarding the alleged illegal appointment of the respondent no.5, submitted the representation dated 12.08.2022 before the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, while praying for removal of the respondent no.5 from the post of Municipal Commissioner. Since, as per the petitioner, the said representation did not yield any result, therefore, the present petition has been preferred by him, claiming the aforementioned reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.5 was not eligible, qualified and suitable to hold the post of Municipal Commissioner, especially when his original post was Senior Assistant (clerical cadre). Since, as per the petitioner, the said representation did not yield any result, therefore, the present petition has been preferred by him, claiming the aforementioned reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.5 was not eligible, qualified and suitable to hold the post of Municipal Commissioner, especially when his original post was Senior Assistant (clerical cadre). He further submits that the respondent no.5 was suspended on nine different occasions, in connection with certain large scale corrupt practices. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the identical issue of an appointment accorded to an ineligible person on the post of Municipal Commissioner came to be assailed by five employees of the respondent-Department by preferring in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2185/2021 (Shrawan Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, on 15.02.2021, passed an order, to the effect, amongst others, that “Meanwhile, the State shall stand restrained from posting or passing any further order of giving charge of Commissioner Municipality to any person, who is not a Commissioner as per Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative & Technical) Rules, 1963”. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the appointment of the respondent No.5 on the post of Municipal Commissioner was a clear violation of the said order passed by this Hon’ble Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the appointment in question is violation of a statutory provision as well as Constitution of India, and that, the petitioner is entitled under the law, to question such appointment, more particularly, when the petitioner himself is a local resident of Barmer District. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Awasthi Vs Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors. AIR 2013 (1) SC 278. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Lakshya Pagaria; Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay; Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Falgun Buch & Mr. Gopal Krishna Chhangani; and Mr. Jagdish Singh appearing on behalf of the respondents, oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Lakshya Pagaria; Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay; Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Falgun Buch & Mr. Gopal Krishna Chhangani; and Mr. Jagdish Singh appearing on behalf of the respondents, oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 submits that the petitioner has adopted pick and choose method, so as to selectively targeted the respondent no.5 owing to his personal vengeance. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner himself has criminal antecedents, and it is also clear from the record that the petitioner is a habitual complainant and extortionist; in various cases, charge-sheet under cognizable offences has been filed against the petitioner. 9.1 To substantiate the same, learned Senior Counsel submits that between the years 2012 to 2019, the petitioner had filed almost 232 complaints against the various government officers/officials and private persons; in the year 2019 & 2020, the petitioner has also filed 29 complaints through Online portal. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.5 further submits that the petitioner also lodged 19 FIR’s against various persons out of which 15 cases have resulted into filing of the negative Final Report, while the remaining are pending investigation; almost 09 complaints were received against the petitioner himself, in connection with the allegation of extortion of money. He also submits that total 32 out of 44 complaints filed by the petitioner before Police Station, Kotwali, Barmer, upon investigation, were found to be false; while the remaining are pending investigation. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.5 further submits that against the enquiry report dated 05.08.2020 and the suspension order dated 15.09.2020, the respondent no.5 preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10010/2020, which was allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 06.12.2021, while quashing and setting aside the suspension order dated 15.09.2020. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.5 also submits that the writ petition seeking Quo Warranto writ is not maintainable, in absence of any permanent posting being given to a person. Moreover, as per learned Senior Counsel, the respondent no.5 is holding the additional charge of the post of Municipal Commissioner. 13. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.5 also submits that the writ petition seeking Quo Warranto writ is not maintainable, in absence of any permanent posting being given to a person. Moreover, as per learned Senior Counsel, the respondent no.5 is holding the additional charge of the post of Municipal Commissioner. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.5 thus submits that it is apparent on the face of record, that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. 14. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of The University of Mysore Vs C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. AlR 1965 SC 491. and B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3106 . 14.1 Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Arun Singh Paul Vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 11298/2021) decided on 30.07.2021; relevant portion of the said judgment, as relied by the learned Senior Counsel, reads as under: 12. In the matter of B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn; (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2), the Apex Court has held as under:- “43……..The order appointing the appellant clearly stated that the appointment is until further orders. The terms and conditions of appointment made it clear that the appointment is temporary and is until further orders. In such a situation, the High Court, in our view, erred in law in issuing a writ of quo warranto the right under Article 226 which can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus”. 17. For issuance of writ of quo warranto the locus standi is insignificant but to maintain a regular writ petition, the petitioner must show that he is a “person aggrieved”. This petition for issuance of quo warranto by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be a public interest litigation. In the matter of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and others Vs. Union of India & Ors. This petition for issuance of quo warranto by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be a public interest litigation. In the matter of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and others Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I) the Apex court held that “a petition praying for a writ of quo warranto being in the nature of public interest litigation, it is not maintainable at the instance of a person who is not unbiased. The proceedings of quo warranto is not meant to settle personal scores…..”. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court opined that if petition for issuance of writ of quo warranto is filed with impropriety or mala-fide intentions, exemplary cost should be imposed. 18. As analysed above, the petition for writ of quo warranto is not maintainable. It appears that petition is filed to either settle personal score or gain publicity. We deprecate such practice and deem it proper to dismiss the petition with cost of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand). Petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) before High Court Legal Aid Committee, Indore within 30 days and remaining Rs.5000/-(five thousand) in the fund of High Court Bar Association, Indore within the aforesaid time. The bar association may utilise the said fund for the purpose of relief to be given to the Covid affected lawyers/family members. Petitioner shall deposit the receipts obtained from said bodies before the Registry of Court within 30 days from today failing which Registry shall apprise the Court regarding non compliance so that suitable proceedings/contempt proceedings may be initiated. 19. The petition is dismissed with cost. 14.2 Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kundan Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors. (Service Singh No. 19199/2019) decided on 16.08.2019; relevant portion of the said judgment, as relied by the learned Senior Counsel, reads as under: 11. By means of this petition the appointment of opposite party no. 3 on the basis of Associate Professor and Professor has been impeached. If the appointment/promotion of the opposite party no. 3 on the post of Associate Professor and Professor was illegal at that point of time, the writ in the nature of certiorari may be invoked by the aggrieved person but such relief may not be granted in the garb of writ of quo-warranto by a busybody. If the appointment/promotion of the opposite party no. 3 on the post of Associate Professor and Professor was illegal at that point of time, the writ in the nature of certiorari may be invoked by the aggrieved person but such relief may not be granted in the garb of writ of quo-warranto by a busybody. A writ of quo-warranto may not be a substitute of writ of certiorari. It is trite law that the writ of quo-warranto may be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill-will. It is also trite law that only a person who comes to the Court with bonafides and public interest can have locus. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 53 and 54 in re: Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 731(I) has observed as under: "53. This Court in A.N. Shashtri v. State of Punjab held that the writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill will. The High Court failed to appreciate that on 18-1-2003 the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the second respondent Halakatte, that cognizance was taken by the criminal court in CC No. 4152 of 2003 by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 24-2-2003, process was issued to the second respondent who was enlarged on bail on 12-6-2003 and the trial is in progress. That apart, the second respondent has made successive complaints to the Lokayukta against the appellant which were all held to be baseless and false. This factual background which was not disputed coupled with the fact that the second respondent Halakatte initiated the writ petition as President of the 1st respondent Union, which had ceased to be a registered trade union as early as on 2-11-1992 suppressing the material fact of its registration having been cancelled, making allegations against the appellant which were no more than the contents of the complaints filed by him before the authorities which had been found to be false after thorough investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta, would unmistakably establish that the writ petition initiated by Respondents 1 and 2 lacked in bona fides and it was the outcome of the malice and ill will the 2nd respondent nurses against the appellant. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on that ground alone and at any event should have refused to issue a quo warranto, which is purely discretionary. It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to an extent in a quo warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposter coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a constitutional court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly. 54. This Court in B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India held that only a person who comes to the Court with bona fides and public interest can have locus. Coming down heavily on busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, this Court at para 14 of the Report held as under: "14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono interest of the Considering the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court it appears that the present petition has been filed by one busybody who is having no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of himself or as a proxy of others for any extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity.” 15. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent No.5 is not sustainable. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 16.1 At the outset, this Court makes it crystal clear that though this Court accedes to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for expeditious disposal of this petition, but while doing so, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enter into the merits of the case, more particularly, owing to the contentious issues involved herein, and in the opinion of this Court, such issues of larger public interest, comprising functioning of the municipal bodies in the State of Rajasthan, require a detailed consideration and adjudication. 16.2 However, the present petition is being decided, while taking into consideration the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents and the material placed on record, in support thereof. 17. 16.2 However, the present petition is being decided, while taking into consideration the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents and the material placed on record, in support thereof. 17. This Court finds that the petitioner himself has serious Criminal Antecedents, particulars whereof, as furnished on behalf of the respondent no.5, read as under: ^^lTtuflag iq= gqdeflag HkkVh jktiqr fuoklh fyyjh;k /kksjk ljnkjiqjk ckM+esj ds fo:) ntZ izdj.kksa dh lwph dz-la Equ-e;] fnukad e; /kkjk ifjoknh dk uke irk urhtk fo'ks"k fooj.k 1- izdj.k la[;k 228@14-07-08 /kkjk 341] 332] 354 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksroky xksfoUn jke iq= Jh esg: jke ekyh fuoklh xsgq jksM] ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 17-02-2009 2- izdj.k la[;k 60@08-03-09 /kkjk 447] Hkknl- o 26¼1½ jkt- ou vf/k- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh Jh pUnz'ks[kj ouiky ukdk ckM+esj Pkkyku U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 10-04-19 dks 4¼1½ ihvks ,DV ds rgr 01 o"kZ rd 5000@& ds tekur eqpyds ij ikcan o 200@& vfHk;kstu O;; 3- izdj.k la[;k 339@20-10-09 /kkjk 188] 147] 149 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh Jh eksrhjke iq= eqykjke tkV fuoklh lokm ine flag Fkkuk fxM+k gky iVokjh ckysjk Pkkyku isfMx dksV 4- izdj.k la[;k 414@09-10-2012 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh Vhdekjke iq= iquekjke jsckjh bUnzk uxj ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 04-03-2014 5- izdj.k la[;k 64@21-02-2013 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh eqykjke iq= eqdukjke lqFkkj 3 uEcj dqvk ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 15-03-2016 6- izdj.k la[;k 81@02-03-2013 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh LeqUnz flag iq= vpyflag jktiwr lksesljk ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 15-06-2015 7- izdj.k la[;k 131@16-04-2013 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh fiFkkjke iq= igyknjke lqFkkj xsgqW jksM+ ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 24-09-2014 8- izdj.k la[;k 150@01-05-2013 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh [ksrkjke iq= #xkjke lqFkkj xsgqW jksM+ ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 11-01-2014 9- izdj.k la[;k 245@06-07-2013 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh gkth nyq[kk iq= lsgtkn [kka bUnzk dksyksuh ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh isf.Mx dksVZ 10- izdj.k la[;k 246@06-07-2013 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh nhiflag iq= vejflag jktiqjksfgr yxsjk ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 04-01-2014 11- izdj.k la[;k 276@01-08-2013 /kkjk 420] 406 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh jes'k dqekj iq= [ksekjke ekyh ckM+esj ,Q vkj ,oh Lohd`r fnukad 25-01-2014 12- izdj.k la[;k 216@10-06-2014 /kkjk 332] 353 Hkknl- o 3 ihMhihih ,DV iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh Jh nqxkZjke ou iky ou foHkkx ckM+esj Pkkyku isafMx dksVZ 13- izdj.k la[;k 294@14-08-2014 /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 120 ch Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksroky Jh fuEc flag iq= eksMflag jktiqr fuoklh yw.kw ckM+esj xzkeh.k Pkkyku isafMx dksVZ ¼jksd U;k;ky;½ 14- izdj.k la[;k 320@01-09-14 /kkjk 420] 406] 468] 471] 120 ch Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh lTtuflag iq= gqdeflag jktiqr ckMesj tSj rQrh"k izkFkhZ o vfHk;qDr Jh lTtuflag }kjk jktLFkku gkbZ dksVZ ls fxjQrkjh ij jksd yxokbZ xbZ Fkh ftldh nh xbZ le;kof/k iw.kZ gksus ls okafNr 15- izdj.k la[;k 45@11-04-19 /kkjk 406] 384] 120 ch Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk ckM+esj xzkeh.k & Pkkyku isafMx dksVZ 16- izdj.k la[;k 134@08-04-19 /kkjk 306] 384] 389@120 ch Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh Jh vkse flag iq= :iflag jktiqr fuoklh yw.kw vkxksj Pkkyku isafMx dksVZ 17- izdj.k la[;k 142@16-04-19 /kkjk 384] 389 Hkknl- iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh Jh rstiky flag Hkq v fu ckM+esj isfMx iqfyl vkjksih lTtuflag }kjk viuh fxjQrkjh ij ekuuh; gkbZ dksVZ tks/kiqj ls LVs yxok;k x;k gSA 18- izdj.k la[;k 23@15-05-14 /kkjk 32] 33 jkt- ou vf/k-o 2] 3, ou laj{k.k vf/k Jh nqxkZjke ou iky ckM+esj Pkkyku ou foHkkx esa ntZ izdj.k 19- izdj.k la[;k 23@10-06-14 /kkjk 32] 33 jkt- ou vf/k-o 2] 3, ou laj{k.k vf/k Jh nqxkZjke ou iky ckM+esj Pkkyku ou foHkkx esa ntZ izdj.k 20- izdj.k la[;k 23@17-06-14 /kkjk 32] 33 jkt- ou vf/k-o 2] 3, ou laj{k.k vf/k Jh nqxkZjke ou iky ckM+esj Pkkyku ou foHkkx esa ntZ izdj.k 21- CRN. 30/22.2.13 u/s 420 CPC PS. 30/22.2.13 u/s 420 CPC PS. f'ko & FR & Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh ckM+esj ¼jkt-½** lTtuflag HkkVh vf/koDrk fyyjh;k /kksjk ljnkjiqjk ckM+esj ds fo:) ntZ ifjoknks dk fooj.k & dz-la- izkIr fnukad dgka ls izkIr dzekad ifjoknh fooj.k xSj lk;y @eqyfte tkap drkZ dh xbZ dk;Zokgh 1 28-02-12 ,lihvks ckM+esj 913@ 28-02-12 eqds'k iq= Hkh[kkjke tfV;k fuoklh pkSgVu jksM ckM+esj lTtuflg }kjk /kks[kk/kM+h dj iSls gM+iuk oxSjk lTtu flg nhikjke lmfu@ jkorkjke gSM dkfu- 605@ [kaxkjkjke lmfu 4231@ 17-05-12 2 18-04-12 ** 1855@ 17-04-12 Jherh ysgjks nsoh ifRu HkSjkjke iztkir fuoklh bUnzk dksyksuh ckM+esj ekrs'ojh dzsfMV dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh }kjk #i;s Bxh djuk oxSjk ** jkmjke lmfu 4097@ 13-05-12 3 14-05-14 ** 2409@ 14-05-14 Jherh ysgjks nsoh ifRu HkSjkjke iztkir fuoklh bUnzk dksyksuh ckM+esj ekrs'ojh dzsfMV dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh }kjk #i;s Bxh djuk oxSjk ** jkmjke lmfu 4357@ 20-05-12 4 22-05-12 ** 2536@ 22-05-12 Jherh ysgjks nsoh ifRu HkSjkjke iztkir fuoklh bUnzk dksyksuh ckM+esj lTtuflg odhy }kjk izkFkhZ;k ds iq= dks /kefd;ka nsuk oxSjk ** jkmjke lmfu 5009@ 09-06-12 5 18-09-12 ** 6177@ 17-09-12 vtqZunkl iq= izrkiey egs'ojh fuoklh egkohj uxj ckM+esj ekrs'ojh dzsfMV dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh }kjk #i;s Bxh djuk o iSls ugha nsuk oxSjk ** Fkkukf/kdkjh 'kkfey i=koyh 9357@ 09-10-12 6 29-12-12 ** 8674@ 28-12-12 lrkjke iq= nkmjke tkfr esxoky fuoklh bUnzk uxj ckM+esj ekrs'ojh dzsfMV dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh }kjk #i;s Bxh djuk o iSls ugha nsuk oxSjk ** Fkkukf/kdkj 'kkfey i=koyh 1422@ 14-02-13 7 04-04-13 ** 1615@ 03-04-13 ihrkjke iq= izgyknjke lqFkkj fuoklh lqFkkjks dk okl xsgq a jksM ckM+esj lTtuflg }kjk /kks[kk/kM+h dj iSls gMiuk oxSjk ** 'kadjykyk lmfu 'kkfey i=koyh 2993@ 08-04-13 8 04-04-13 ** 1614@ 03-04-13 [ksrkjke iq= #xkjke lqFkkj fuoklh lqFkkjks dk okl xsgqa jksM ckM+esj lTtuflg }kjk /kks[kk/kM+h dj iSls gMiuk oxSjk ** 'kadjykyk lmfu izdj.k la64@13 'kkfey i=koyh 2997@ 08-04-13 9 23-02-13 ** 916@ 22-02-13 leqUnzflag iq= vpyflg jktiqr fuoklh u;k lkseljk lTtuflg }kjk /kks[kk/kM+h djuk oxSjk ** Lghjke mfu eqdnek ntZ 81@ 02-03-13 lTtuflag HkkVh vf/koDrk yhyfM+;k /kksjk ljnkjiqjk ckM+esj ds fo:) dh xbZ bUlnknh dk;Zokgh& 1- bLrxklk uEcj 27 fnukad 05-07-2008 dks vUrxZr /kkjk 107] 116¼3½ n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr eqfrZc dj Jheku mi[k.M eftLVªsV egksn; ckM+esj dh vnkyr es is'k fd;k x;kA 2- bLrxklk uEcj 11 fnukad 25-03-2009 dks vUrxZr /kkjk 107] 116¼3½ n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr eqfrZc dj Jheku mi[k.M eftLVªsV egksn; ckM+esj dh vnkyr es is'k fd;k x;kA 3- bLrxklk uEcj 44 fnukad 15-10-2009 dks vUrxZr /kkjk 107] 116¼3½ n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr eqfrZc dj Jheku mi[k.M eftLVªsV egksn; ckM+esj dh vnkyr es is'k fd;k x;kA tks fnukad 20-10-2009 dks ikcU/k gqvk gSA 4- bLrxklk uEcj 36 fnukad 06-12-2010 dks vUrxZr /kkjk 107] 116¼3½ n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr eqfrZc dj Jheku mi[k.M eftLVªsV egksn; ckM+esj dh vnkyr es is'k fd;k x;kA 21-06-2011 dks Mªksi gqvk gSA^^ 18. This Court also finds that the petitioner is a habitual complainant and filed various complaints against the private person as well as government officers/officials and other like authorities and agencies. This Court also finds that the petitioner is a habitual complainant and filed various complaints against the private person as well as government officers/officials and other like authorities and agencies. 18.1 This Court, on a bare perusal of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5, containing the particulars regarding various complaints being filed by the petitioner herein, finds that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, and that, he himself has been involved in commission of various crimes, and was habitual of filing complaints against the various private persons and government agencies, so as unnecessarily harass them, and with the motive of extorting money from them; many of such complaints have culminated into filing of the negative final report by the concerned police authorities, while others are pending investigation; list in that regard, as furnished on behalf of the respondent no.5 is reproduced as hereunder: ^^02- lTtuflga iq= gqdeflag tkfr jktiwr fuoklh fyyfj;k /kksjk ljnkj iqjk iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh ckMesj ds }kjk ntZ djok;s x;s çdj.kksa dk fooj.k & Øål å çdj.k la[;k@fnukad@/kkjk uke irk eqyfte urhtk iqfyl urhtk dksVZ 01 163 / 02-11-2016 /kkjk 186] 167] 218] 409] 420] 467] 468] 471] 120 ch iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k izsekjke iq= yqEHkkjke tkfr esxoky fuoklh lqjk ujirku pkyku uEcj 67 fnukad 31-08-2019 /kkjk 420] 468, 471 Hkknl tSj Vªk;y 03- lTtuflga iq= gqdeflag tkfr jktiwr fuoklh fyyfj;k /kksjk ljnkj iqjk iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh ckM+esj ds }kjk ntZ djok;h x;h ifjoknksa dk fooj.k && Øå lå dgka ls izkIr gqbZ foizkFkhZ dk fooj.k ifjokn dk laf{kIr fooj.k ikyuk fjiksVZ Hkstus dh fnukad ifjokn dk urhtk 1 ,lihvks ckM+esj 5630 fnukad 13-07-2016 jk.kw daoj oxSjk foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk ljdkjh jk'kh dk xcu djuk oxSjk ikyuk fjiksVZ Hksth xbZ nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 2 Fkkuk ij fnukad 06-07-2016 jk.kw daoj oxSjk foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk ljdkjh jk'kh dk xcu djuk oxSjk & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 3 Fkkuk ij fnukad 13-07-2016 iq’ik o mldk ifr ukFkkjke oxSjk foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk QthZ nLrkost rS;kj dj xzke iapk;r cksyk ljiap cuuk oxSjk & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 4 ,lihvks ckM+esj 1999 fnukad 04-04-2018 dkNcnku iq= fot;nku tkfr pkj.k fuoklh lqjk fot;nku iq= nxZnku tkfr pkj.k fuoklh lqjk pkj.kku foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk QthZ rjhds ls ljdkjh jkf'k mBkdj xcu djuk oxSjk 1699 fnukad 09-05-2018 nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 5 iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh ckM+esj 7939 fnukad 26-07-2018 Vkseizdk'k fo'uksbZ ,0Mh0,e0 ckMesj uhjt feJ ,lMh,e ckMesj rstdj.k iVokjh iVokj e.My pqyh foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk xzke iapk;r >kMok esa voS/k dkj[kkuksa ds fo:/k oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh ugha djuk oxSjkA 777 fnukad 05-10-2018 nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 6 ,lihvks ckM+esj 7470 fnukad 27-08-2018 rstdj.k iVokjh iVokj e.My pqyh ukekyqe oxSjkA jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk 2016 esa xkbZMykbu tkjh djrs gq;s vke ukxfjdksa ds vkoktkgh dh leL;k dk fuokj.k ds lEcU/k esa jruflag }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= ij dk;Zokgh ugha djuk oxSjk 4992 fnukad 19-10-2018 nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 7 ,lihvks ckM+esj 8245 fnukad 04-10-2018 iquekjke låmåfuå jkds'kdqekj dkfu efgikyflag dkfu vklqjke dkfu ftrsUnzdqekj iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFkh tloUrflag ds lkFk ds ekjihV dj xkMh Nhudj ys tkuk oxSjkA 4871 fnuakd 14-10-2018 ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh uh;r ls >qBh ntZ djokukA 8 ,lihvks ckM+esj 8298 fnukad 05-10-2018 iquekjke låmåfuå jkds'kdqekj dkfu efgikyflag dkfu vklqjke dkfu ftrsUnzdqekj iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFkh tloUrflag ds lkFk ds ekjihV dj xkMh Nhudj ys tkuk oxSjkA 4871 fnuakd 14-10-2018 ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh uh;r ls >qBh ntZ djokukA 9 ,lihvks ckM+esj 8359 fnukad 09-10-2018 XktsUnz pkj.k xzke lsod xzke iapk;r fo'kkyk yhyk iRuh xkSrepUn tSu ljiap fo'kkyk ukekyqe oxSjk foizkFkhZx.kks }kjk fo'kkyk ls fo'kkyk ls cksfFk;k rd jksM Mkejhdj.k esa QthZ tkWc dkMZ dk mi;ksx dj e'khujh ls dk;Z djokuk 6587 fnukad 25-11-2018 nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 10 ,lihvks ckM+esj 8378 fnukad 10-10-2018 xtsUnz pkj.k xzke lsod xzke iapk;r fo'kkyk yhyk iRuh xkSrepUn tSu ljiap fo'kkyk ukekyqe oxSjk foizkFkhZx.kks }kjk fo'kkyk ls fo'kkyk ls cksfFk;k rd jksM Mkejhdj.k esa QthZ tkWc dkMZ dk mi;ksx dj e'khujh ls dk;Z djokuk 6587 fnukad 25-11-2018 nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 11 ,lihvks ckM+esj 9231 fnukad 25-11-2018 lfpo xzke iapk;r ckMesj exjk Jherh yhyk iRuh tksxkjke nsoklh QeZ egky{eh ,UvjizkbZtst ekfyd xzke iapk;r exjk dqVjfpr nLrkost ls ljdkjh jkf'k gMiuk jsdMZ izkIr djuk 'ks"k 12 ,lihvks ckM+esj 9250 fnukad 27-11-2018 xzke lsod nsjklj ljiap nsjklj ekfyd QeZ eSllZ ,pds, dEiuh nsjklj dqVjfpr nLrkost ls ljdkjh jkf'k gMiuk jsdMZ izkIr djuk 'ks"k 13 lhvks dk;kZy; ckMesj 4926 fnukad 27-11- 2018 xzke lsod tlkbZ ljiap tlkbZ ekfyd QeZ eSllZ Hkxorh eSVsfj;y lIyk;lZ tlkbZ dqVjfpr nLrkost ls ljdkjh jkf'k gMiuk nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZ 14 ,lihvks ckM+esj 9256 fnukad 27-11-2018 x.kiryky m0fu0 rkRdkfyd Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k izkFkhZ }kjk is'k fjiksVZ ij izdj.k ntZ ugha djuk oxSjk ljdkjh deZpkjh dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh uh;r ls >qBh ntZ djokukA 15 Fkkuk ij izkIr lqesjnku iq= gqdenku pkj.k fuoklh lqjk tkxhj ?ksojpUn tSu ljiap lqjk foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk "kM;U= jpdj iz/kkuea=h vkokl ;kstuk esa fu;e fo:/k vkokl Lohd`r djuk & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 16 Fkkuk ij izkIr DkNcnku iq= fot;nku tkfr pkj.k fuoklh lqjk fot;nku iq= nxZnku tkfr pkj.k fuoklh lqjk pkj.kku foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk QthZ rjhds ls lnL; ekeqj fd;s tkdj ljdkjh _.k jkf'k mBkuk & nkSjkus tkap >wBh ik;h xbZA 17 Fkkuk ij izkIr gmok nsoh lji ap xzke iapk;r pqyh 'kEHkqflag iq= tqtkjflag jktiwr fuoklh pqyh rkRdkyhu xzke lsod pqyh foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk QthZ rjhds ls ljdkjh jkf'k mBkuk & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 18 Fkkuk ij izkIr rstdj.k iVokjh pqyh foizkFkhZ }kjk lwpuk ekaxus ij le; ij lwpuk miyC/k ugha djokuk & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 19 Fkkuk ij izkIr 09-08-2018 iquekjke låmåfuå jkds'kdqekj dkfu efgikyflag dkfu vklqjke dkfu ftrsUnzdqekj iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFkh tloUrflag ds lkFk ds ekjihV dj xkMh Nhudj ys tkuk oxSjkA ljdkjh deZpkjh dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh uh;r ls >qBh ntZ djokukA 20 Fkkuk ij izkIr 14-08-2018 iquekjke låmåfuå jkds'kdqekj dkfu efgikyflag dkfu vklqjke dkfu ftrsUnzdqekj iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFkh tloUrflag ds lkFk ds ekjihV dj xkMh Nhudj ys tkuk oxSjkA ljdkjh deZpkjh dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh uh;r ls >qBh ntZ djokukA 21 Fkkuk ij izkIr 29-08-2018 XktsUnz pkj.k xzke lsod xzke iapk;r fo'kkyk yhyk iRuh xkSrepUn tSu ljiap fo'kkyk ukekyqe oxSjk foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk ljdkjh jkf'k dk xcu djukA & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 22 Fkkuk ij izkIr 29-08-2018 ujsUnzflag xzkelsod cksyk v/ky ljiap xzke iapk;r cksyk foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk QthZ tkWc dkMZ pykdj e'khuksa ls dk;Z dj ljdkjh jkf'k mBkuk & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 23 Fkkuk ij izkIr 09-10-2018 uke ukekyqe gky lfpo xzke iapk;r ckMesj exjk Jherh yhyk ljiap ckMesj eaxjk QeZ egky{eh ekfyd foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk izkFkhZ dks lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds rgr lwpuk miyC/k ugha djokukA nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 24 Fkkuk ij izkIr 09-10-2018 ujsUnzflag xzke lsod cksyk v/ky ljiap xzke iapk;r cksyk eSllZ ,u ds dUVªD'ku dEiuh cksyk xzsoy lM+d dk dk;Z u djokdj ljdkjh jkf'k mBkuk & nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 25 ,lihvks ckM+esj 9804 fnukad 31-12-18 Jhefr iq’ik nsoh x.kir yky rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k QthZ o dqVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj dj lajip dk pquko yM+uk & iSf.Max lEcfU/kr ls fjdkMZ izkIr djuk 'ks"k 26 Fkkuk ij izkIr 12-01-2018 ukekyqe leLr deZpkjhx.k o lg;ksxhx.k Jh es?k flag iq= bUnzflag tkfr jktiqr fuoklh yq.kq xjhc gksus ds ckotwn chih,y Js.kh esa ugha j[kuk oxSjkg & ifjoknh o es?k flag ckj ckj rych ds mijkUr tkap esa lg;ksx ugha djuk 27 Fkkuk ij izkIr 06-03-2018 ukekyqe leLr deZpkjhx.k o lg;ksxhx.k Jh es?k flag iq= bUnzflag tkfr jktiqr fuoklh yq.kq xjhc gksus ds ckotwn chih,y Js.kh esa ugha j[kuk oxSjkg & ifjoknh o es?k flag ckj ckj rych ds mijkUr tkap esa lg;ksx ugha djuk 28 ,lihvks ckM+esj 6420 fnukad 04-09-2019 Jhefr iq"ik nsoh x.kir yky rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k] jkgqy ckjgB iqfyl v/kh{kd ckMesaj] nhiflag Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesaj QthZ o dqVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj dj ljiap dk pquko yM+uk & iSf.Max lEcfU/kr ls fjdkMZ izkIr djuk 'ks"k 29 ,lihvks ckM+esj 7225 fnukad 30-09-2019 izkFkhZ Lo;a ds f[kykQ lgh tkap djus ds laca/k es Lkhvkj ua- 45@19 ds laca/k esa & 'kkfey i=koyh lhvkj ua-45@19 ds 30 ,lihvks ckM+esj 16341 fnukad 30-09-2019 izkFkhZ Lo;a ds f[kykQ lgh tkap djus ds laca/k es Lkhvkj ua- 45@19 ds laca/k e a & 'kkfey i=koyh lhvkj ua-30@19 ds 31 ,lihvks ckM+esj 526 fnukad 29-01-2019 Jh iquek jke lmfu rRdkyhu in LFkkiu iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesaj xzkeh.k foizkFkhZ 'kkjhfjd :i ls iqfyl esa vufQV gksus ds lEcU/k esa ikyuk izsf"kr dh xbZ ljdkjh deZpkjh dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh uh;r ls >qBh ntZ djokukA 32 Fkkuk ij 01-01-2019 Jh Mqxjk jke ljiap xzke iapk;r Hkknjsl ukekyqe xzke lsod xzke iapk;r Hkknjsl] ukeyqe ekfyd QeZ eSllZ tkfxM+ daLVªD'ku dEiuh] ukekyqe eSllZ eka ukx.kspk;h dUVD'ku dEiuh foizkFkhZ x.kksa }kjk QthZ rjhds ls nLrkost rS;kj dj ljdkjh jk'kh dk xcu dju & jsdMZ izkIr djuk 'ks"k 33 Fkkuk ij 10-01-2019 Jh vkjukFk lmfu] fd'kuflag mfu] x.kir yky mfu] jkds'k dqekj dkfu-] iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k foizkFkhZx.kks }kjk vkijkf/kd "kM;a= ds rgr eqyftekuksa dsk cpkus ds fy, fof/k or :i ls izdj.k ntZ ugha djuk & ljdkjh deZpkjh dks rax o ijs'kku djus dh uh;r ls >qBh ntZ djokukA 34 Fkkuk ij 13-02-2019 Mqxjk jke ljiap oxSjkg izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 17-10-2018 dks tfj;s jftLVjh Hksth xbZ Mkd dk tokc ugha nsuk & jsdMZ Fkkuk ds eqrkfcd dksbZ jftLVjh izkIr ugha gksuk nkSjkus tkap >qBh ikbZ xbZ 35 Fkkuk ij fnuakd 24-07-2019 iquek jke lmfu iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k IkzFkhZ ds lkFkh tloUrflag ds lkFk ekjihV dj okgu vkjts 04 ;q, 1888 dks tCr djuk & 36 lhvks ckM+esj fnukad 03-01-2020 Nhiflag m-fu- iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k fcuk foHkkxh;k vuqefr ds okgu [kjhnuk] futh okgu dk mi;ksx dj ljdkjh fdjk;k olqyuk laKs; vijk/k dh fjiksVZ ij izdj.k ntZ ugha djuk] /kkjk 41 o 55 lhvkjihlh dk mYy[ku djuk oxSjkg Øekad 39 fnukad 05-01-2020 Hksth xbZA nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 37 lhvks ckMesj fnukad 9-5-2020 dkukjke fljoh Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk ckMesj xzkeh.k vkjVhvkbZ dh lqpuk le; ij miyC/k ugh djokus ckcr Øekad 1743 fnuakd 15-5-2020 nkSjkus tkap >qBh ik;h xbZA 38 iqfyl vf/k{kd ckMesj fnukad 4-8-2020 esokjke tSu ,,e,y ckMesj jkefuokl fujh{kd Fkkukf/kdkj fnukad 14-4-20 dks foizkFkhZx.k }kjk /kkjk 144 lhvkjihlh dk mYY?ku djuk oxSjk 3197 fnukad 13-9-20 tkap >qBh ik;h xbZ 39 iqfyl vf/k{kd ckMesj fnukad 14-10-2020 40 flvks ckMesj fnukad 24-1-20 txekyjke gSM dkfu0 684 o mxenku gSM dkfu0 994 foizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk iqfyl lhukkrj.k iksfylh dh ;ksX;rk ugha j[krs gq,s in LFkkfir gksuk 267 fnukad 3-2-20 >qBh 41 flvks ckMesj fnukad 14-2-20 ftyk dysDVj ckM +esj oxSjk fof/kd uksVhl dsoykjke o tsBkjke ds lEcU/k esa 929@21-3-20 >qBh 42 flvks ckMesj fnukad 23-6-20 esokjke tSu ,,e,y ckMesj jkefuokl fujh{kd Fkkukf/kdkjh fnukad 14-4-20 dks foizkFkhZx.k }kjk /kkjk 144 lhvkjihlh dk mYY?ku djuk oxSjk 3197 fnukad 13-9-20 tkap >qBh ik;h xbZ 43 flvks ckMesj fnukad 14-7-20 Eksokjke tSu ,,e,y ckMesj iapk;r ek:Mh esa foizkFkhZx.k }kjk /kkjk 144 lhvkjihlh dk mYya/ku djuk oxSjk 3197 fnukad 13-9-20 tkap >qBh ik;h xbZ 44 Fkkuk ij fn0 6-6-20 tks/kflag QthZ nLrkost rS;kj dj jk'ku dkMZ tkjh djokuk iSf.Max iqfyl lTtuflag ds fo:/k Fkkuk gktk ij izkIr ifjoknksa dk fooj.k %& lTtuflag ds fo:) Fkkuk gktk ij dksbZ ifjokn izkIr ugha gqbZ gSA Hkonh; lgh@& Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk ckM+esj xzkeh.k^^ 19. On the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent no.5 that the petitioner himself has criminal antecedents to his discredit, coupled with the conduct of the petitioner, as is clearly ascertainable from the record, that the petitioner is a habitual complainant, this Court finds that the writ of Quo Warranto, as prayed for herein, does not deserve to be issued in the present case, more particularly, when the petitioner himself has not approached this Court with clean hands. 19.1 However, while taking into consideration the criminal antecedent record of the petitioner coupled with the material showing that the petitioner is habitual of filing complaints against the various public bodies, this Court is of the firm opinion that in the present limited adjudication, the petitioner has not been able to substantially thwart the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, so as to persuade this Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto in the present petition, which is being decided without going into the merits. The information available on record clearly shows that though the petitioner is trying to besmirch the character and eligibility/suitability of the respondent no.5 for the purpose of holding the public office, but at the same time, absence of bona fides of the petitioner, coupled with his previous criminal antecedent record, ought not to be lost sight of by this Court. The criminal antecedent record of the petitioner reveals the serious and extensive criminal history of the petitioner and therefore, the same speaks much about his own credentials, and that, the petitioner has not portrayed before this Court the complete and correct factual matrix of the case. While making such observations, strength is being derived from the judgment rendered in Kundan Singhi (supra). 19.2 Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the preliminary objection made in the present petition is sustainable and thus, the writ of Quo Warranto, is refused to be issued. 20. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner does not render any assistance to his case. 21. This Court thus, without going into the merits of the case, does not find any ground so as to make any interference in the impugned orders dated 20.05.2022 and 08.06.2022. 22. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. 23. 21. This Court thus, without going into the merits of the case, does not find any ground so as to make any interference in the impugned orders dated 20.05.2022 and 08.06.2022. 22. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. 23. However, this Court takes note of an order dated 03.02.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court; relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “6. In view of above, the Secretary of the Department of Local Self Government is directed to file his own affidavit clarifying/stating following:- (i) the total number of posts of Executive Officers, Municipal Commissioner, Chief Executive Commissioner, etc. in the entire State; (ii) how many posts are held by the competent officers as per Rules -IAS, RAS or persons from Municipal Services; (iii) at how many places the persons other than competent authorities are working as Commissioners, Executive Officers, etc. indicating the name of persons and their posts; (vi) any recruitment process or exercise of promotion is in offing; (v) what were compelling reasons for which, respondent No.5 has been allowed to continue on the post of Municipal Commissioner since 08.06.2022; (vi) what has the State done in furtherance of report dated 05.08.2020 (Annexure.4); (vii) whether any effort has been made to find suitable person to be posted as Municipal Commissioner, Barmer.” 24. This Court observes that the affidavit dated 14.02.2023 filed by the respondent-authorities in pursuance of the aforementioned order of this Hon’ble Court, being order dated 03.02.2023, has responded to the issues framed in the said order, in the following manner:- 24.1 Answer to issue (i): 2 posts of Senior Commissioner, 62 posts of Commissioner, 26 posts of Executive Officer Class II, 27 posts of Secretary, 58 posts of Executive Officer Class III, and 132 posts of Executive Officer Class IV. And that in addition to this, there are 30 sanctioned posts of Revenue Officer (Class I), 87 posts of Revenue Officer (Class II) and 65 posts of Officer of Tax Assessors. And that there are a total of 489 sanctioned posts of the aforesaid classes. 24.2 No separate answer for issues (ii) and (iii) were given and it was stated that there are 234 officers of the State Services working in various municipal bodies including 5 IAS officers, 31 RAS officers and 198 officers of Rajasthan Municipal Services. And that there are a total of 489 sanctioned posts of the aforesaid classes. 24.2 No separate answer for issues (ii) and (iii) were given and it was stated that there are 234 officers of the State Services working in various municipal bodies including 5 IAS officers, 31 RAS officers and 198 officers of Rajasthan Municipal Services. In addition to this, 65 officers were also discharging their duties on the aforesaid posts. 24.3 Answer to issue (iv): That currently two recruitments ongoing; 90 officers for the post of Executive Officers Class IV, and 14 officers for the post of Revenue Officer Class II. That in the year 2022-23, 13 officers were promoted from the post of Revenue Inspector to the post of Tax Assessors, 9 Officers were promoted to the post of the Executive Officer Class III, 1 Officer was promoted to the post of Revenue Officer Class I, and 2 Officers were promoted to the post of Executive Officers Class II. That a total of 25 Officers have been promoted to the aforesaid posts, and that no case of promotion is lying pending before the respondent-authorities concerned. 24.4 Answer to issue (v): That competent officers are not available to be posted as Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Council, Barmer. That presently multiple schemes are being undertaken by the State including Indira Rasoi Yojana, Indira Gandhi Shahehri Rozjar Guarantee Yojana. Indira Gandhi Shehehri Credit Card Yojana. And that vide communications, dated 18.11.2022 and 31.05.2022, the D.D.R. (Regional) and District Collector respectively have been authorised to discharge the duties of the post of appropriate officer working nearby U.L.B. And that therefore, the respondent no.5 has been given the charge of Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer. 24.5 Answer to issue (vi): That against the enquiry report and the suspension order, dated 05.08.2020 and 15.09.2020 respectively, the respondent no.5 preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10010/2020, which was allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 06.12.2021, and quashing and setting aside the aforementioned suspension order. That thereafter, the concerned respondent-authorities issued another charge-sheet, dated 17.10.2022, against the respondent no.5. 24.6 Answer to issue (vii): The no proposal for finding a competent officer for the post of Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer is pending before the concerned respondent-authorities. 25. That thereafter, the concerned respondent-authorities issued another charge-sheet, dated 17.10.2022, against the respondent no.5. 24.6 Answer to issue (vii): The no proposal for finding a competent officer for the post of Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer is pending before the concerned respondent-authorities. 25. This Court, after a careful perusal of the aforementioned affidavit, finds that the response of the State lacks clarity and is grossly inadequate in answering the issues framed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.02.2023. 26. This Court further observes that the issues in question pertain to the functioning of an essential public service i.e. municipalities in the State of Rajasthan, which subserve the public interest at large. And therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be withered away owing to the maladministration on the part of the concerned respondent-authorities. 27. This Court thus finds that the issues in question are of paramount importance and unless they are answered to the satisfaction of the Court, the functioning of municipalities in the State of Rajasthan would remain gravely jeopardized. Hence, in the interest of justice, this Court hereby directs the Registry to treat the order dated 03.02.2023 (relevant portion quoted in this order) as an issue of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), while registering a suo moto petition. The Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders and directions.