IMPORTANT POINT
The revocation of suspension of an elected municipal member must be supported by adequate reasoning, reflecting due consideration of the circumstances surrounding the suspension.

ORDER :

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this special appeal and the writ petition are heard finally.

2. The prayer in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4553/2024 preferred by the writ petitioners Basant Kumar and Ors. is as follows :-

"(a) That the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur may please be quashed and set aside.

(b) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; and

(c) cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

3. The prayer in the special appeal preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed in the aforesaid writ petition reads as follows :-

"I. The impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed by HON'BLE JUSTICE VINEET KUMAR MATHUR in S.B.MISC STAY PETITION in S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4553/2024 [BASANT KUMAR & ORS V/S. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.] may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. Any other order or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the appellant.

III. Costs may kindly be also awarded in favour of the appellant."

4. The facts noted by this Court are that the appellant was elected as Chairman, Municipal Board, Suratgarh in the year 2019. A tender for laying down sewerage line, construction of safety tank and removal of old sewerage tank was awarded to one M/s Monti Carlo Ltd. and while the complaints against the said tender process was being investigated, a sum of Rs.1,60,98,940/- was withheld from the dues of the company. At that juncture, the action was initiated against the appellant under the provisions of Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter "the Act of 2009"). The inquiry was challenged by the appellant in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5413/2023 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2023. Another writ petition was preferred by the appellant being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10207/2023 challenging the inquiry and inquiry report as well, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 17.08.2023 on account of the fact that the appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.07.2023. After suspension, the respondent State took a stand of holding a judicial inquiry against the present appellant, which was challenged by him along with the suspension order by filing another writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12569/2023, that was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2023.

5. The fresh writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4553/2024 was preferred by the writ petitioners Basant Kumar and three others on account of the fact that there was a revocation of the suspension order vide order dated 19.02.2024 resulting into reinstatement of the appellant. The said revocation order has been stayed by the Single Bench vide the interim order dated 10.05.2024, against which this special appeal is preferred by the present appellant.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur assisted by Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari made his submissions on behalf of the appellant principally on three grounds; firstly that the order of suspension was duly revoked by the State, however, while ignoring the powers and findings of the State Government, the impugned interim order has been passed staying the revocation order dated 19.02.2024. The second submission made by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mathur was that the revocation of the suspension order was on account of prolonged suspension and for that he has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court passed in SBCWP No.2839/1997 "Parmanand Paliwal Vs. State & Anr.", decided on 1.10.1997 and reported in 1997 (3) RLW (Raj.) 2076. The relevant paras of the said judgment read as follows :-

"(3). The conjoint reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of S. 63 indicates