D.L. MEHTA, J.—By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition against the respondents preventing them from issuing the suspension order against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, it was brought to the notice that the suspension order has been passed and the writ petition was amended. It was prayed that the suspension order (Annexure-AA) dated August 18, 1983 may be set aside.

2. The petitioner has taken number of grounds in his writ petition including the ground of malafides. On behalf of the respondents, a reply to the writ petition was filed on September 26, 1983. It was originally submitted by the respondents that the petitioner performed his duties strictly within the four corners of law laid down by the Statute. However, on an application for amendment being filed, the amendment was allowed and it was submitted by the respondents that it is not admitted that the petitioner performed his duties strictly within the four corners of law laid down by the Statute. It was submitted by the respondents that the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Makrana addressed a complaint to the Collector, Nagaur, the copy of the said complaint has been produced by the respondents marked as Ex.R.l. On receipt of the complaint by the Collector, Nagaur, he forwarded it to the State Govt. and the State Govt. ordered on October 21, 1982 to the Collector, Nagaur to have a preliminary enquiry in this regard. Thereafter, the State Govt. issued a reminder in this regard on November 27, 1982. The Collector, Nagaur directed the Deputy District Development Officer, Nagaur to submit a preliminary enquiry report in this regard. The preliminary enquiry report was forwarded by the Collector, Nagaur to the State Govt. on November 19, 1982. On January 1, 1983, the State Govt. issued a show cause notice to the petitioner containing Memorandum of charges and allegations (Ex. R.6 & 6 A). The petitioner was directed to submit his reply within a fortnight. It will not be out of place to mention here that in this very notice, it has been mentioned that the State Govt. desires that the report should be submitted at the earliest and so this notice is being issued. Shri Shish Ram Ola, Honble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Gramin Vikas, Rajasthan Jaipur passed the order (Ex.R.7) on the Office File and on the basis of the said order, the order of suspension (Ex.R 8.-Annexure-AA) was issued.

3. Originally, the petitioner impleaded respondents No. 3 to 9 as parties. However, the petitioner made a prayer to the Court to delete the names of respondents No. 3 to 9 and the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner was accepted. The petitioner has taken the stand that there should be a clarity in the mind of those who have been restored with the power under particular Statute or instrument and should exercise the powers vested in them bonafidely, fairly and in a just and proper way. The petitioner has submitted that the institution of the Government is acting malafidely (malice of law and malice of facts) since the inception of Panchayat and he is one of the victims of those who want to exercise their power through the instrument of the Government for their benefit. He has submitted that earlier, he had to file number of writ petitions against the Government. He has given the list of those writ petitions in Ground No. (n) of the writ petition and has tried to show that right from the inception i. e. from the year i955, when the petitioner is said to have started his political carrier, un-abetting actions are taken by the respondents alongwith other persons not to allow him to work smoothly on the elected post. He has also submitted that these writ petitions have been decided in his favour and all the writ petitions related to the Panchayat and Panchayat Samities, He has further submitted that the writ petitions were mostly filed agai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document