SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Vijendra Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 391 of 2021
Decided On : 17-05-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Deendayal Sharma and Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.K. Agarwal Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma Dr. Ganesh Parihar AAG with Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 19(l), 38, and 39 - The petitioner, an elected member, was removed from the Panchayat Samiti on grounds of having more than two living children, contrary to provisions of the Act regarding eligibility - The process of removal was challenged as arbitrary and in violation of procedural rules. (Paras 1-38)

(B) Procedural Fairness - The court emphasized the necessity for authorities to follow proper procedural mandates, specifically mentioning that the petitioner was not afforded adequate time to defend himself regarding the charges against him before his removal. (Paras 31-38)

(C) Principle of Malafide Intent - The court found evidence of malafide intent in the actions taken by the authorities to remove the petitioner, suggesting an ulterior motive was involved. (Paras 31-33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was removed from his post as an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti following a complaint regarding his eligibility due to the birth of a third child after the cut-off date. The removal was enacted swiftly without proper inquiry or opportunity for defense.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the removal process was flawed due to a lack of compliance with legal requirements for adequate notice and inquiry, and that the decision to presume the birth of a third child lacked evidentiary support.

Issues: The main issues were whether due process was followed in the removal of the petitioner and whether the presumption of a third child was legally justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the failure to follow mandatory procedures rendered the removal order invalid and emphasized the need for authorities to act in good faith, warning against arbitrary actions based on incomplete information.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the removal order was quashed.

Table of Content
1. removal due to disqualification after third child born. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 12 , 34)
2. elected vote casting during inquiry process. (Para 4 , 11 , 15)
3. due process in issuing charge notices. (Para 6 , 8 , 13)
4. arguments on improper procedure and malafide intent. (Para 17 , 19 , 24 , 30)
5. significance of fair inquiry process. (Para 18 , 22 , 29)
6. legal foundational principles of disqualification. (Para 20 , 21 , 23)
7. final conclusion to quash the removal order. (Para 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

Ganesh Ram Meena, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 01.01.2021 issued by the Addl. Commissioner & Joint Secretary-II (Enquiry), Government of Rajasthan, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, whereby petitioner- Vijendra Kumar (Elected Member of Ward No.18, Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh, District Sikar), has been removed from the post of Member, Panchayat Samiti, Laxmangarh, District Sikar and declared the post vacant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994') and further he has been declared permanently ineligible for contesting the elections to any Panchayati Raj Institutions.

2. Before dealing with the arguments of the counsels appearing for the respective parties it would be proper to mention the detailed facts which emerges for consideration of this Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties.

3. After due Notification for the general elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the petitioner- Vijendra Kumar submitted his nomination form for Ward No.18 on 08.11.2020 for election as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti, Laxmangarh, District Sikar. Along-with the nomination form, the petitioner submitted the details about his living children. He mentioned that he has two children namely; Paridhi, born on 04.03.2015 and another Akshita, born on 10.02.2017. The petitioner submitted the nomination form as a candidate of the political party i.e. Bhartiya Janta Party.

4. After voting for the elections, the counting of votes took place on 08.12.2020 and thereafter, the result was declared on the same day and the petitioner was declared a 'returned candidate' as Member of Panchayat Samiti, Laxmangarh, District Sikar from Ward No.18 and on being declared as a returned candidate, a certificate of election was also issued by the Returning Officer.

5. After declaration of the result and the petitioner being declared as a returned candidate, a complaint on the very same day i.e. on 8.12.2020 was submitted by one Mr. Sarendra Kumar Meel, who was a defeated candidate in the election. In the complaint, which is Annex.4 in the writ petition, complainant Sarendra Kumar Meel has alleged that the petitioner- Vijendra Kumar at the time of filing of the nomination form was having two living children and on 20.11.2020 his wife has given birth to the third child. In this manner, as on the date of election i.e. on 8.12.2020, he has more than two living children and has become ineligible for being Member of the Panchayati Raj Institution. It was specifically mentioned in the said complaint that the petitioner Vijendra Kumar be declared ineligible and he be restrained from participating in the election process for the post of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan scheduled on 10.12.2020 and next day respectively.

6. On the basis of the complaint dated 08.12.2020 by complainant Mr. Sarendra Kumar Meel, making allegations against the petitioner, the Returning Officer (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Laxmangarh, District Sikar, on 08.12.2020 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that his wife has given birth to a child on 20.11.2020. It has also been mentioned in the show cause notice that on an inquiry being conducted by the Block Medical Officer, Laxmangarh, there is a confirmation of 'missing delivery' of his wife Smt. Anju Devi, which is her third child. Explanation to the show cause notice was to be submitted by 12:00 noon on 09.12.2020. On 09.12.2020 the Retu

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top