The court emphasized that the suspension of elected representatives should be exercised with caution and only on substantial grounds, safeguarding their public reputation and rights.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. Instant writ petition calls in question the order dated 09.04.2025, whereby the State Government has suspended the petitioner from the post of Chairperson and Member, Municipal Board, Sagwara in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 39 (6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2009’).

2. Mr. Balia, learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that this Court had extensively heard this case on 25.05.2025 and Mr. Sandhu’s arguments have duly been noticed in the proceedings of such date. Instead of repeating those arguments, he began from the point where the matter was concluded on 25.05.2025. Hence, in order to collate the facts and contentions, the submissions made on the previous date and the hearing of 03.07.2025 are being noticed conjointly.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner navigated the Court through various resolutions adopted by the Municipal Board on 27.07.2006 (Annexure-1); 21.08.2008 (Annexure-2); 08.10.2012 (Annexure-3); 05.09.2013 (Annexure-4) and 05.07.2021 (Annexure-5) and submitted that for the last 15 years, different Boards of the Municipality have decided to demolish the old building, which was in a dilapidated condition and to construct a new commercial complex in its place.

4. He stated that the Municipal Board had not only planned merging/including the land of the Patwar Bhawan in the project but also sought permission for conversion of land from the State Government. He submitted that the Board in its meeting dated 05.07.2021 decided to construct a commercial complex to make the Board financially independent.

5. Learned counsel submitted that considering the plan, which the Municipal Board had sent, the State Government approved the entire proposal, including conversion of the land. He submitted that since such an ambitious commercial complex was in the offing, the decision to demolish the construction of the meeting hall by the Board cannot be faulted with.

6. He added that the new building and the land of the meeting hall were to be used in the proposed commercial complex, which could not be constructed without removing the existing structures.

7. While maintaining that demolition of the Patwar Bhawan was inevitable, he argued that at the best it could be an erroneous decision in understanding the resolution dated 05.07.2021, but it did not involve any financial or substantial irregularity. He submitted that the entire idea was in the best interest, as part of the process of constructing a commercial complex, which would not only fetch rental and other income for the Board but would also provide better amenities to the citizenry.

8. In relation to other allegations against the petitioner relating to the issuance of the patta in favour of Mohd. Ismail Ghanchi – Vice-Chairman of the Board, learned counsel argued that said patta was issued under section 69A of the Act of 2009, which requires surrender of title and other rights and in many cases, pattas under section 69A of the Act of 2009 are being issued even on the basis of mere possession, after taking highe