RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD NAGORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order Annex ure-3 dated 29. 7. 1989 whereby he has been suspended from service with effect from 19. 7. 1989 on the ground that he has remained in custody for more than 48 hours between 15. 7. 1989 and 17. 7. 1989.

(2.) IT is alleged that a cross-beating took place between the petitioner's family and one Hukmichand's family, who happens to be his neighbourer. As a result thereof, the petitioner's father lodged an FIR against 9 persons bearing No. 184 of 1989 On 15. 6. 89 at about 11 P. M. Shri Hukmichand also fild an FIR against the petitioner and his other family members bearing No. 183 of 1989 at P. S. Nagore on 15. 6. 1989 at about 10. 30 P. M. on the basis of this F. I. R. , it is alleged that initially a case under ss. 147, 148, 149, 448 and 336 IPC was registered against the petitioner and his family members and on the basis of his father's FIR, a case under ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 336 and 452 IPC was registered. However, later on the offences under ss. 324, 325 and 307 IPC were added in the case filed by Shri Hukmichand and consequently, the petitioner was arrested on 17. 7. 1989 and he was released on bail on 19. 7. 1989 and, therefore, he remained in police and judicial custody for more than 48 years.

(3.) ON behalf of respondent No. 3, it was contended that de facto doctrine is now well established that the acts of the Officers defacto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding as if they were the acts of officers de jure. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on Gokaraju Rangaraju V. State of A. P. (1 ). It was also contended that the writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 Shri Bhanwarlal has been sought on the ground that no notification has been issued in the Official Gazette about his appointment as Administrator of the respondent Municipal Board nor terms of his appointment have been specified. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 Shri Bhanwarlal was ineligible for appointment to the post of Administrator of the respondent Municipal Board. When he was eligible for appointment as Administrator, such a notification could be issued even now and, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. It was further submitted that the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory remedy by way of filing the appeal under s. 310 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and therefore, even on this ground, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It was also submitted that the Government of Rajasthan had issued notification under s. 293-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. When the writ petition was originally filed, no challenge was made to the authority and title of the Office of the answering respondent. The respondent No. 3 Shri Bhanwarlal has submitted his appointments order along with his reply which is marked as Annexure-R. 1 dated 11. 3. 1987. According to respondent No. 3 the suspension of the petitioner is based on a deeming provision and it cannot be deemed to have been revoked on his release on bail from custody.