MUKESH AJMERA Vs. SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. B. L. Maheshwari appears on caveat for the respondent No. 1, Shri Satya Narain-original complainant, who has filed complaint against the present petitioner Sarpanch to the effect that after he was elected as Sarpanch 3rd child has born to his place, therefore, under the law he had incurred automatic disqualification. Hence, he should be removed immediately from the post of Sarpanch. MR. Maheshwari made a grievance that though caveat was entered way back on 27. 5. 99 and the copy of the same was served upon the petitioner. MR. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner failed to supply copy of writ petition to him. He, therefore, submitted that this petition should be straightway dismissed only on this ground. If it is not to be dismissed then the petitioner should supply copy of writ petition to him.

(2.) ONCE caveat is filed it is the duty of the petitioner to supply copy of petition to the caveator. Mr. Joshi, a senior advocate of this Court, tendered his apology for not supplying the copy due to the circumstances beyond his reach. However, as ordered by this Court Mr. Joshi immediately supplied copy of the writ petition to Mr. B. L. Maheshwari during the course of hearing of this writ petition. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 caveator has asked for time to file reply to this writ petition and prayed that this writ petition be adjourned for sometime to enable him to file reply to this petition.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the reasons assigned by the trial court while passing the impugned order against the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on this, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at Annex. 6 is required to be stayed by the mandatory interim order, if the charge for the post of Sarpanch is already taken over from him.