Order : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. Due to the paucity of time, the present writ petition itself is not being decided and therefore, the arguments have been advanced and heard on the stay application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on stay application. 3. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected representative holding the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Merta City. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that vide order dated 30.08.2024, the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. He further submits that the petitioner had put only his signatures on the Pattas issued in favour of the two individuals after the entire process was completed by the authorities subordinate to him including the Executive Officer. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that right from the submission of the application till the grant of Patta, the entire proceedings are required to be undertaken by the Junior Engineer, ATP, Senior Assistant including Executive Officer. He further submits that when the proceedings reached to the Chairman, the petitioner has mentioned that the Patta should only be issued after holding an inquiry and going through the entire documents and the record of the case. After passing this order, the subordinate authorities were under an obligation to check the entire documents and after examining the same, the Pattas were prepared, on which, the Executive Officer placed his signatures and thereafter, the prepared Patta was placed before the petitioner for his signatures. He further submits that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the entire documents were properly checked by the Government authorities, including Executive Officer and therefore, he had placed the signatures on Patta. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, the entire proceedings of issuing Patta are required to be undertaken by a number of officials who are working in the Municipal Board and thereafter finally when the entire record reaches the Chairman, he puts his signatures on the file for issuance of Patta. He further submits that immediately after the complaint was received for the two Pattas which were wrongly issued, he initiated steps for cancellation of the same. He further submits that immediately after the complaint was received for the two Pattas which were wrongly issued, he initiated steps for cancellation of the same. He further submits that all other persons including the Executive Officer, ATP and other officials, who have prepared the record and processed the case of those two individuals for issuance of Patta, have not been placed under suspension and merely notices have been issued in their case for the proposed disciplinary action. Learned Senior Counsel, in these circumstances, submits that the petitioner is an elected representative and has been given a discriminatory treatment viz- a-viz those persons who are actually involved in checking the documents for issuing the Patta in question. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further undertakes that the petitioner is ready to submit an undertaking before the competent authority to the effect that during the course of the judicial inquiry, he will not influence the witnesses and will not attempt to tamper the evidence and, therefore, the suspension order may be stayed during the pendency of judicial inquiry. To buttress his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied upon certain other orders passed by the State Government, wherein such undertaking was taken from an elected representative during the course of judicial inquiry and suspension order in those cases was revoked. He, therefore, prays that the stay application may be allowed and during the pendency of the judicial inquiry and the present writ petition, the suspension order dated 30.08.2024 may be stayed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel-cum- AAG for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the State Government is well within its right to exercise Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 for placing an elected representative under suspension if the facts of a particular case warrants. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the present case, the Pattas were issued de hors the law. He also submits that the petitioner was ultimately responsible to check the veracity of all the documents and thereafter on being satisfied, he should have put his signatures on the Patta. He further submits that the other persons who were involved in the issuance of Patta, have already been issued notices and the disciplinary inquiry against those persons is in contemplation. He further submits that the other persons who were involved in the issuance of Patta, have already been issued notices and the disciplinary inquiry against those persons is in contemplation. However, learned Senior Counsel very fairly submits that none of those persons have been placed under suspension till date. He, therefore, prays that the stay application may be dismissed. 7. Matter requires consideration. 8. The fact that the petitioner is an elected representative working as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Merta City has been suspended on account of issuance of two Pattas de hors the law. The chronology of events mentioned above shows that the Pattas have been issued after the entire process was followed in which a number of officials including the Junior Engineer, ATP, Senior Assistant and thereafter, an Executive Officer had checked the documents submitted by the applicant and at the end, when the file was placed before the Chairman, Municipal Board, Merta City he had written lEiw.kZ i=koyh dh tkap djds gh fu;e vuqlkj iV~Vk tkjh gks- Thereafter, the respondent-Government Officials, who were dealing with the case in hand should have examined the documents and it was incumbent upon them to verify each fact before preparing the Patta. The officials after examining the documents had prepared the Pattas on which the Executive Officer had put his signatures and the Pattas were produced before the petitioner for his signatures. 9. In the opinion of this Court, in normal circumstances, the petitioner should have checked the veracity of the documents before signing of the Pattas, but at the same time, it was incumbent upon the authorities of the State i.e. Junior Engineer, ATP, Senior Assistant and Executive Officer to take proper care in checking the documents before preparing the Pattas. Since a number of officials had already processed the case and finally the Pattas were singed by the Executive Officer, in normal circumstances, there was no reason for the petitioner to disbelieve that the documents were not checked properly by the authorities subordinate to him and therefore, he had also signed the Pattas in question for issuing the same. 10. Since a number of officials had already processed the case and finally the Pattas were singed by the Executive Officer, in normal circumstances, there was no reason for the petitioner to disbelieve that the documents were not checked properly by the authorities subordinate to him and therefore, he had also signed the Pattas in question for issuing the same. 10. The other persons who were involved in issuance of two Pattas i.e. Junior Engineer, ATP, Senior Assistant and Executive Officer were only issued show cause notices although they were responsible for undertaking the verification of the documents on the basis of which the Pattas were issued but in their case, no suspension order has been issued till date, whereas the petitioner has been placed under suspension which in the opinion of this Court is clearly discriminatory treatment given to him. 11. Since the petitioner is an elected representative and he is also ready to give an undertaking before the competent authorities that he will not interfere in the judicial inquiry and he will not tamper with the witnesses and documents, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if the order of suspension issued by the respondents is stayed. 12. In view of the discussion made above, the stay application merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The suspension order dated 30.08.2024 issued by the respondents is stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking as stated above before the competent authority within a period of one week from today. 13. It is also made clear that the judicial inquiry shall be completed within a period of two months and the State will be free to move an application for vacation of the interim order, if the petitioner is responsible for delay in inquiry proceedings. 14. List the writ petition for final disposal on 07.03.2025.