MOHAR SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER ATRAULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Pradhan of village Kalyanpur Rani, Pargana and Tahsil Atrauli, District Aligarh. Some reports were filed against him. On the basis of these reports a charge-sheet was issued on 5th December, 1973 by the respondent no. 1, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to this petition. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 12th March, 1974, vide Annexure '2' to this writ petition.

(2.) IT appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer Atrauli called for a report of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar submitted his report on 17-7-1975, a true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure '3' to this writ petition. Thereafter on 30th July 1975 the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 1 claiming the right to file objection against the report of the Tahsildar and also praying that he may be permitted to appear through a counsel. This request has been rejected by the respondent no. 1 by Annexure '5' to this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State argued on the basis of decision reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court, p. 1689, that the petitioner has no absolute right to engage a counsel. In my opinion, each case has to be judged on its own facts. The facts of the case of the Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of this case. The impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is erroneous, perverse and illegal. The charge-sheet itself indicates that the petitioner was directed to inform the authority concerned whether he wanted a personal hearing or desired to produce evidence in respect of his defence. The petitioner replied that he wanted to be represented by a counsel. I see no reason how this prayer should be rejected particularly at this stage.