Neta Ram and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners while claiming themselves as elected Panchas of Gram Panchayat Kot Baliyan, Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali with a prayer that the respondent-State of Rajasthan may be directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22(1) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ''the Rules of 1996'') and the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Kot Baliyan, respondent No. 3 may be removed from the office of Sarpanch or being suspended from the said office. It is contended by the petitioners in the writ petition that while respondent No. 3 was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Kot Baliyan (sic) period running from 2005 to 2010, he has committed several irregulation and in respect of the said irregularities, the petitioners have preferred complaint before the District Collector, Pali on 25.7.2011 and the District Collector, Pali while acting upon the said complaint, has directed Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali to conduct the enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the respondent No. 3 by i(sic) petitioners. It is further contended in the writ petition that in pursuance the directions given by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali, the Panchayat Extension Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali has conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Pali wherein it is mentioned that the Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and some Ward Panchas of the Gram Panchayat Kot Baliyan have committed several irregularities in issuance of pattas during their tenure running from 2005 to 2010. It is contended by the petitioners that on the said report of the Panchayat Extension Officer, no action has been taken by the respondent No. 3 as per Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996.

While arguing this writ petition, the only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 22(1) of the Rules of 1996, it was incumbent upon the authorities of Zila Parishad to conduct the enquiry and submit a report to the State Government within 30 days, however, the report of the enquiry has not been sent by the Additional Chief Executive Officer to the State Government within a period of 30 days as per rule 22(1) of the Rules of 1996 and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondent No. 1 to send the enquiry report (Annex. 4) to the State Government immediately.

From the perusal of complaint (Annex. 1), it is clear that the petitioners submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Pali and not to the State Government. In response to the complaint made by the petitioners, the District Collector Pali has directed the Additional Chief Executive Officer to look into the complaint and to submit the report. As per rule 22(1) of the Rules of 1996, if any complaint is made to the State Government and if the State Government gives direction to any officer to conduct an enquiry, then the said officer is required to submit its report within 30 days to the State Government. The matter in hand, the petitioners have not made any complaint to the State Government and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 22(1) of the Rules of 1996 cannot be made applicable in the present controversy and no such direction, as claimed by the petitioner, can be given. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected from the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali to take appropriate action in the matter, expeditiously in accordance with law after taking into consideration the report submitted by the Panchayat Extension Officer and after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the effected persons.

With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of.