SARKAR HUSSAIN ALIAS SARKAR AHMAD Vs. COMMISSIONER MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order passed by learned Commissioner, Moradabad, dated 6-2-1992 by which the learned Commissioner was pleased to reject the application for stay. An order was passed by the Parganadhikari, Bihari, District Moradabad under section 95 (1) G of the Panchayat Raj Act, suspending the petitioner pending enquiry. The Parganadhikari aforesaid was satisfied that the petitioner as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha had illegally trespassed over the Gaon Sabha public land the matter was being enquired into in proceedings under section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and [Land Reforms Act. The Parganadhikari stated in the order that till the petitioner who was occopying the office of Pradhan Continues to be in the office, It would not be possible for the proceedings to go smoothly against him. He considered that in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to remove the petitioner from bis office of Pradhan for the time being till the proceedings are pending.

(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order of the Parganadhikari, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commission while admitting the revision rejected the application for interim stay. The petitioner has come up before this Court against the said order of rejection of the application for interim orders.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State, I am not inclined to interefere and pass inrerim order as prayed. I am of the opinion that each case has to be decided on its own facts. The Supreme Court judgment (supra) clearly lays down that if some civil rights are interfered with and parties' interest is jeopardised, only then the Court should interfere. The Supreme Court has not ruled that in each and every rase of revision or appeal in such cases, the grant of interim orders pending revision or appeal is mandatory. It is the discretionary jurisdiction which has to be exercised judiciouly in view of the facts and circumstances of each case.