Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 26852
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, J
NARENDRA KUMAR KHODANIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 15215 / 2024
Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishan Das; Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate-cum-AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Monal Chug, Ms. Meenal Singhvi
The court upheld the legality of a fact-finding inquiry conducted by a committee, clarifying that the principle of delegation does not apply to administrative actions.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 - Section 39 - Inquiry against elected representatives - The petitioner challenged the constitution of a committee for inquiry into alleged irregularities, arguing it was impermissible delegation of authority. The court found the inquiry was a fact-finding exercise, not a statutory inquiry, and upheld the committee's formation. (Paras 8, 10, 24, 27)
(B) Delegation of Authority - The principle of 'delegatus non potest delegare' applies to statutory functions, not administrative actions. The court ruled that the delegation of fact-finding tasks is permissible and necessary for efficient administration. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Chairman of Municipal Board, challenged a notice based on a committee's report regarding alleged irregularities, asserting the inquiry was previously dropped. (Paras 1, 7, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the inquiry process and the committee's formation. (Paras 31)
Issues: Whether the inquiry constituted an impermissible delegation of authority and if the prior dropped inquiry affected the current proceedings. (Paras 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that preliminary fact-finding exercises are valid and do not violate the principle of delegation, emphasizing the need for administrative efficiency. (Paras 27, 28)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Order
Reportable 23/09/2024
1. The petitioner, elected as Chairman of Municipal Board, Sagwara in the year 2021, has challenged the action of the respondents, more particularly, the order dated 05.06.2024 whereby the respondent No.3 has constituted a committee to inquire.
2. The facts germane are that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Shankarlal Decha, alleging that old building has been illegally demolished, an inquiry was conducted by the respondent No.2-Assistant Director (Vigilance) and by way of U.O. Note dated 23.08.2022, the same was dropped.
3. Another complaint is made in which it was alleged that the Members of Municipal Board have committed various irregularities. Acting upon said complaint, the respondent No.2-Assistant Director (Vigilance) asked the respondent No.3-Deputy Director (Regional), Udaipur to inquire into the matter and furnish a report within a period of seven days.
4. The respondent No.3-Deputy Director in turn constituted a committee of 4 persons by his order dated 05.06.2024, and asked them to look into the complaint and furnish report within 3 days.
5. The committee sent its report vide letter dated 23.08.2024 to the respondent No.3-Deputy Director, who in turn not only forwarded the same but also sent a memorandum of charges and Articles of charges to the respondent No.2.
6. On receiving the report so sent by the respondent No.3, the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department sent a show cause notice dated 05.09.2024 to the petitioner and sought his explanation about the findings in the report.
7. Impugning the notice dated 05.09.2024, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel firstly contended that the proceedings against the petitioner are malafide inasmuch as the State has proceeded on the basis of very same allegation for which a similar complaint after being found incorrect was dropped by way of U.O. Note dated 23.08.2022.
8. The basic plank for challenging the notice/proceedings in question has been that since the inquiry was ordered by respondent No.2-Assistant Director (Vigilance) to be conducted by the respondent No.3-Deputy Director, he could not have further delegated his power to conduct inquiry and constitute a committee of four persons. It was vehemently argued that constitution of committee by order dated 05.06.2024 was impermissible in the eye of law.
9. While relying upon the maxim-Delegatus Non Potest Delegare, learned Senior Counsel argued that the inquiry as required by the State Government was to be conducted by none other than the respondent No.3 himself and therefore, not only the inquiry report prepared by the committee and forwarded by the respondent No.3 by the communication dated 28.08.2024 but also action of the State taken in furtherance thereof (notice dated 05.09.2024), is illegal and contrary to law.
10. Learned Senior Counsel argued that there is only one inquiry provided under sub-section (1) of section 39 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2009’), which is to be conducted by the State Government and thus, inquiry conducted by the committee constituted by the respondent No.3-Deputy Director is illegal and contrary to law. He argued that the inquiry report sent with the communication dated 28.08.2024 cannot be relied upon as the same was without authority of law.
11. In support of this argument, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment dated 21.01.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Manzoor Ali vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17283/2021 and prayed that the present writ petition be allowed and notice dated 05.09.2024 based on an illegal report be quashed.
12. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel-cum-Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that what was directed by the
