MEENA VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble VYAS, J. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 3. 10. 2008 and prayed that the order of suspension may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be restored to her position as if she was never placed under suspension and she may be relegated to the position, which was obtaining prior to passing of the impugned order and the entire proceedings conducted so far may be quashed and the Government may be restrained from holding inquiry on the premise of inquiry report of the Deputy Director (Regional), Ajmer.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Ward Member from Ward No. 11 in the month of August 2005 in the Parbatsar Municipal Board. Thereafter, elected members of the Municipal Board elected the petitioner as Chairman unanimously. Since then she was continuing until passing of the impugned order of suspension. In the writ petition, it is pointed out by the petitioner that she is belonging to the Indian National Congress and the State Government is ruled by another political party Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), therefore, the State Government is always having an evil eye over the members belonging to the Indian National Congress. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that whenever the ruling Government got the opportunity to uproot the elected person of the Indian National Congress, they have been uprooted and, for illustration, it is stated by the petitioner that in Nagaur district, there are 4 Municipal Boards viz. , (i) Deedwana, (ii) Merta, (iii) Nagaur and (iv) Parbatsar.

(3.) WITH regard to charge No. 1, it is submitted by the petitioner that allegation No. 1 pertains to construction of road in Ward No. 11 and, for that purpose, notice inviting tender was published and tenders were invited vide publication dated 09. 04. 2007. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, the work was to be completed within a period of one month. Hence, after receipt of the tenders, a comparative statement was prepared on 15. 05. 2007 and one Shri Yogesh Chandra was found to be the lowest bidder and he was informed that his tender was accepted and, therefore, he was directed to commence the work and complete the same within the stipulated time. He was conveyed the acceptance vide letter dated 05. 06. 2007; but, unfortunately, Yogesh Chandra failed to commence and complete the construction work within the stipulated time, therefore, in the circumstance, the order was cancelled by the Executive Officer vide letter dated 18/19-07-2007 and, simultaneously, the second lowest bidder was called upon to undertake the work and, for the same, communication was sent on 18. 07. 2007. He was called upon to give his consent by 23. 07. 2007. But, in the meantime, all the bidders including the second lowest bidder withdrew their security money. Accordingly, fresh tenders were invited vide notice dated 14. 08. 2007. The aforesaid proceedings was placed before the General House of the Municipal Board in its meeting dated 18. 07. 2007 wherein the House approved the act of inviting fresh tenders. Therefore, after approval when fresh tenders were received the Municipal Board proceeded in accordance with law and prepared comparative table of the bidders, in which, lowest bid was made by M/s Praveen Construction Company whose rate was 32% above. Thereafter, the lowest tenderer was further called upon for negotiation and finally on account of persuasion of the authorities of the Municipal Board, the lowest tenderer was persuaded to reduce its rates and it agreed to reduce the rate to the tune of 23. 71% above and, thereafter, necessary technical sanction was granted and order was placed with M/s Praveen Construction Company vide communication dated 24. 10. 2007.