VANDANA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the Ex -Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Udaipur respondent No. 3, has filed this petition and challenged the meeting held on 23.2.1999 to debate the motion of no confidence and the no confidence motion passed against her and it is also prayed that the nomination of Smt. Sajan Katara - respondent No. 4 on the post of Zila Pramukh of Zila parishad, Udaipur in her place made on 27.2.1999 be declared illegal. When this petition had come up for hearing of admission before me on 9.3.1999, I was not much impressed by other arguments advanced by learned Counsel Shri Jasmatia for the petitioner. However, only one argument, which was emphathetically argued by learned Counsel Shri Jasmatia, appealed to me. It was submitted by learned Counsel Shri Jasmatia that the post of Zila Pramukh cannot be filled up by nomination. It can be filled up only by election. In para No. 15 of the petition as well as ground (V), this specific contention was raised. Repeatedly, Mr. Jasmatia was asked to be sure about this and Mr. Jasmatia asserted that there is no such provision under the Act. It was only because of this that I ordered to issue notice to the respondents and also passed the interim order restraining the respondent No. 4 Smt. Sajan Katara nominated by the State Government as Zila Pramukh of Zila Parishad, Udaipur from discharging functions as Zila Pramukh.

(2.) THE respondents are duly served of the notice of this petition. Notice was to be heard on 5.4.1999. However, today this petition is heard on account of separate applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 through their counsel Shri Vijay Bishnoi and Shri Mahendra Singhvi for the respondent No. 4. In fact, detail reply is also filed on behalf of the respondents No. l to 3 and the reply is also filed by the respondent No. 4. In the reply as well as the applications made under Article 226(3) of the Constitution it has been specifically contended that the petitioner has misled this Court and obtain interim order as there is a clear provision under Section 25 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1995. Section 25 of the Act reads as under -

(3.) IN view of the above, this petition itself is required to be dismissed on the ground that this Court was mis -led and false statement was made by the petitioner in this petition with a special cost. It is well settled law that if the persons do not come before the Court with clean hands then their petitions will have to be dismissed even though there may be some merits in the case. In this case, as stated earlier, there is no substance or merits in this case.