HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fact of the case are that the respondent No. 6 was the elected Sarpanch of gram Panchayat Gegal, Panchayat Samiti Sri Nagar, District Ajmer in the election held in February 2000.

(2.) THE petitioner made a complaint against the respondent No. 6 for the misconduct and concealment of fact that the had his 5th child after the scheduled date of 1995 and he acquired the disqualification to contest the election of Sarpanch.

(3.) THE petitioner further submits that since the respondent No. 6 was not able to get the relief from this Court, he approached to the Government. THE Government vide its order dated 28. 1. 2004 rejected its earlier order dated 30. 10. 2003. Against the order dated 28. 1. 2004, the instant writ petition has filed by the petitioner on the ground that the State Government has not properly appreciated the order dated 30. 10. 2003 which was passed on the basis of the finding given by the SDO. On the question whether the petitioner has locus standi or not to file the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner referred a judgment in case of Rajendra Kumar vs. State of M. P. & Others (1), wherein MP High Court has held that for issue of a writ of co-warranto no special kind of interest in the relator is needed nor is it necessary that any of his specific legal right be infringed. It is enough for its issue that the relator is a member of the public and acts bona fide and is not a mere pawn in the game having been set up by others. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a resident of Gram panchayat Gegal and complainant, he has a right to file this writ petition.