The principle of equality before the law mandates that individuals in similar situations must be treated equally, and arbitrary actions by authorities are subject to judicial review.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the suspension order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension from the post of Chairman of Municipal Board, Rajgarh.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh (Alwar) and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.04.2022 and the said order was assailed by him by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6771/2022 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2023 and the suspension order dated 25.04.2022 was quashed and set aside. Counsel submits that on the ground of same allegations, the petitioner has again been placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 24.07.2023 with the allegation that certain discrimination was done by him in the encroachment removal drive. Counsel submits that a meeting was convened on 17.09.2021 wherein the Member of Legislative Assembly (for short 'the MLA') of the concerned Constituency as well as the other office bearers including the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh (Alwar) (for short 'the SDO) and the Executive Officer (for short 'the EO') were present in whose presence a decision was taken for removal of the encroachment from the public land. Counsel submits that as a consequence thereof, the encroachment removal drive was initiated and encroachments were removed. Counsel submits that now charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner as well as upon the other office bearers including the SDO and the EO and all of them were placed under suspension and enquiry has been initiated against them. Counsel submits that till date, neither enquiry has been concluded against the above two Officials nor against the petitioner, however their suspension has been revoked but the suspension of the petitioner is still continuing. He submits that case of all the three is at par, hence the suspension order of the petitioner is liable to be revoked till completion of enquiry. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kamli Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2023 (1) DNJ 299. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a public representative and he has been placed under suspension in a casual way due to political reasons, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents as well as counsel for the intervenor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner being the Chairman of the Institution i.e. Municipal Board has acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner and took a decision for removal of certain encroachments, without affording the opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. Counsel submits that some of the persons were having valid pattas and Court decrees in their favour but overlooking the same and without giving any opportunity of hearing to such persons and without awarding them adequate amount of compensation, the illegal action of their removal was taken against them. Counsel submits that as per Section 55 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, the Act of 2009) the petitioner was supposed to constitute a committee in this regard but without doing so, the illegal and arbitrary action has been taken by him. Counsel submits that after following the due process of law as contained under Section 39 of the Act of 2009, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and now a judicial enquiry is pending against him. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Devendra Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthn and Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14381/2023.

4. Counsel for