Honble SINGHAL, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.04.1991 in which respondent No. 2 Joint Legal Remembrancer II while conducting the enquiry in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal Jhanwar, Chairman of Municipal Board, Nokha has rejected the application of the petitioner that he has no locus standi and as such cannot be permitted to lead the evidence or impleading a party in the enquiry. It has also been found by the said enquiry officer that it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for initiation of the enquiry as on the basis of the record it was found that the deputation headed by. Shri Chuni Lal Ex. M.L.A. and Pradhan met the then Minister for initiating the enquiry. It has also been referred in the said order that the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in writ petition No. 1393/93 has been rejected and no appeal Was filed against the said order. The appeal was filed by Kanhaiya Lal Jhanwar and the. Division Bench has referred that matter to the Larger Bench. That was a matter with regard to the suspension of the Chairman and subsequently revoking the order of suspension.

(2). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government in collusion with Kanhaiya Lal Jhanwar is not leading the proper evidence and the petitioner in the public interest had a due right and obligation to bring the actual facts on record and, therefore, a writ should be directed to non-petitioner No. 1 to produce proper evidence and relevant files and the evidence to prove allegations levelled against the non-petitioner No. 3 in the enquiry pending under Section 63 of the Municipalities Act before the non-petitioner No. 2 in relation to removal of non-petitioner No. 3 from the post of Chairman Municipal Board Nokha. A prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 27.03.1993.

(3). In D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 98/93 it is mentioned that "It may be mentioned here that Shri Om Prakash Tiwari who is the petitioner in the other writ petition moved on application for being impleaded as a party in the writ petition, the dismissal of which is under challenge here. His application for being impleaded as a party was disallowed, hence he has moved an application in this appeal also."

"We have heard the parties at length. It appears that the same matter is being challenged in different proceedings from different angles and if the matter is heard by different Benches then there is every likelihood of contradictory judgments. We are of the opinion that this appeal should also be placed before the same Bench to which the writ petition No. 896/93 is sent for hearing. The present appeal may also be connected with writ petition No. 896/93 and it may be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a Bench for deciding both these matters."

(4). The learned Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and his arguments have also been heard. It is submitted by him that the enquiry has already been concluded and the matter is listed for final orders and that the petitioner has no locus standi. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan (1) which was a matter under the Panchayat Act and it was held by the Full Beach that "The State Government has power to recall a suspension order." Since that point is not in dispute before me, this authority has no direct application. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Saktu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others (2) wherein it was held that before revocation of a suspension order prior notice to the complainant is not necessary. Held -"the question of suspension is purely a discretion vested in the Director and nobody can be said to have a legal or vested right to get an order of suspension. If the petitioner has no legal or vested right in the order made by the Director, there is no question of issuing notice to him before revoc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document