SEEMA DEVI TOMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 7. 7. 2007 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Adm.-I), Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur by which he was declared disqualified to continue as Member of Panchayat Samiti Nadbai in view of the bar contained in Section 19 (l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that petitioner was elected as Member Panchayat Samiti Nadbai on 8. 2. 2005. One Atar Singh filed a complaint against him that she was not eligible to contest the election because on that date she had a third child born to her after the cut-off date i. e. 27. 11. 1995 and violated Section 19 (l) of the said Act because the above child was born sometime in the year 2000. Petitioner submitted a false affidavit before the returning officer declaring otherwise. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Nadbai who found the allegations against the petitioner substantiated and it was on that basis that the government vide order dated 11. 7. 2005 declared the petitioner as disqualified to hold that office and the office was declared vacant. This order was challenged by the petitioner in SBCWP No. 6263/2005. This Court vide order dated 17. 8. 2005 stayed operation of the order. In the meantime, the Additional Secretary (Enquiry) Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan by his order dated 26. 11. 2005 stayed the operation of the order dated 11. 7. 2005 and held the order dated 11. 7. 2005 in abeyance. According to the petitioner, when the government stayed the operation of that order, he decided to withdraw the writ petition. The government suspended operation of the order dated 11. 7. 2005 while considering the review application of the petitioner and recommending the necessity to hold a fresh enquiry. In his enquiry report dated 14. 3. 2007, the Chief Executive Officer who conducted the fresh enquiry recorded that the complaint against the petitioner was false and that the charge of having third child after the cut-off date was not established. Yet, the respondents-government with an ulterior motive to purposely deny him right to participate in the proceedings of no confidence motion against the Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Smt. Kanta by passing an arbitrary and illegal order dated 7. 7. 2007 stayed operation of the order dated 11. 7. 2005 and the order dated 26. 7. 2005. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the record as well as the judgments cited at the bar.