MADHU JAJOO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed an application to withdraw the instant petition filed by her before the principal seat of this Court. The other side has raised serious objections and opposed the said application.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this application are that the petitioner, who is the Chair-person of Municipal Council, Bhilwara, had challenged the order of suspension passed by the State Government from the Chair-personship and Membership of the Municipal Council. Bhilwara on various grounds. The writ petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated 1-9-1998. However, this Court rejected the application for interim relief in spite of the fact that all possible arguments had been made on her behalf including the allegations of mala fide against Shri Ramrich Pal Nuval, respondent No. 2 presently the M.L.A. from Bhilwara Constituency and regarding the arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government. By a speaking and reasoned order, the prayer for grant of interim relief was rejected though the Court directed to list the matter for final hearing on 16-9-1998.

(3.) Petitioner preferred the present application for withdrawal of the instant writ petition on 17-9-98 on the ground that she had been advised to file a writ petition at Jaipur Bench of this Court challenging, inter alia, the validity of the provisions of S. 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") and, also, the same impugned order of suspension and, thus, she prayed that she may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with permission to pursue the writ petition already filed by her before the Jaipur Bench. As the application for withdrawal was not supported by an affidavit, this Court, vide order dated 8-10-98 directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in support of the application and, also, to disclose whether she had disclosed the factum of pendency of the instant writ petition before the main seat while filing the writ petition before the Jaipur Bench. Petitioner filed an affidavit on 9-10-98 before this Court stating that the factum of pendency of the writ petition had not been disclosed in the writ petition filed at Jaipur Bench and it was not so disclosed as the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that it was not necessary as the validity of the provisions of S. 63(4) of the Act has been challenged therein. The State Govenment has filed reply to the said writ petition and taken a serious objection regarding suppression of the material fact before the Jaipur Bench and that writ petition is still pending for hearing.