AMRITLAL NAGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dt. 25.07.2006 by which while removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch the seat has also been declared vacant. The order has been passed on the ground of conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court for the offence under Section 365, 368 and 120 -B IPC.

(2.) IT has been submitted that the order of conviction dt. 01.09.2003 passed by the trial Court has already been stayed by the Appellate Court vide order dt. 16.09.2003. Apart from staying the sentence awarded by the trial Court, even the operation of the order passed by the trial Court had been stayed by the Appellate Court, in spite of the stay granted and proper representation been made by the petitioner, the impugned order dt. 25.07.2006 has been passed. It has further been submitted that subsequently even the appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed by the Appellate Court vide order dt. 29.09.2006 and order of conviction passed by the trial Court has been setaside while acquitting the petitioner of the offence alleged against him.

(3.) APART from acquittal by the Appellate Court, even otherwise, since the operation of the order of conviction passed by the trial Court has been stayed by the Appellate Court way back in the year 2003 itself, the respondents were not justified in passing the impugned order of removal after more than two years that also when the matter was sub -judice before the Appellate Court and there has been interim stay on the operation of the order of conviction. In all fairness, the authorities should always take an objective approach in such matters and a duly elected person should not be unseated in such a casual mechanical manner.