VISHNUPRASAD D BRAMBHATT Vs. M S PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel. This petition is filed by the petitioner stating that he is Sarpanch of Matar Gram Panchayat and he has received one notice from D.D.O. which is dated 24-3-1998 to the effect that the petitioner is prima facie involved in an offence of moral turpitude and that why the petitioner be not suspended. Against this notice, this petition is filed to quash and set aside the showcause notice.

(2.) Mr. Barot, learned Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that F.I.R., on the basis of which this notice is issued, does not disclose the name of the petitioner as an accused and that the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence of moral turpitude. It was urged that the petitioner is not at all involved in any criminal offence as alleged in the notice and, therefore, the notice was bad in law, violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Anant S. Dave urged that at this stage, the stage is interlocutory and it could not be said that any fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed so as to file this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Obviously and admittedly this petition is filed on a show-cause notice issued by the D.D.O. which is dated 24-3-1998. Notice states that the petitioner prima facie appears to have been involved in an offence of moral turpitude. The fact constituting the so-called offence is publishing a pamphlet which is also placed on record. It clearly appears that the stage is quite premature. The authority competent to take any action against the petitioner is still to take a decision whether the petitioner is involved in any criminal prosecution which can be labelled as an offence of moral turpitude. At this stage the D.D.O. has issued a show-cause notice giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain certain circumstances. From this fact, it could not be said that the authority concerned has acted mala fide, because a final decision in the matter under Sec. 59 of the Panchayats Act is neither taken nor the action for suspension of the petitioner is guaranteed to be taken. It may happen that on a representation of the petitioner, the show-cause notice may be filed by concerned authority. In this set of circumstances, there is no breach or violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner so as to entitle him to have the extraordinary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution.