RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE
LAWS(RAJ)-1984-8-51
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (FROM: JAIPUR)
Decided on August 31,1984

RADHEY SHYAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

FURNELL V. WHANGAREI HIGH SCHOOLS BOARD [REFERRED TO]
LEWIS V. HEFFER [REFERRED TO]
LIBERTY OIL MILLS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO RAGHO AROTE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRI LAL VS. DY COMMISSIONER SONEPAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. PUKHRAJ [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

G RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1992-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH NARAYAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER PRAKASH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-5-10] [REFFERED TO 2,5]
RAKESH GHATIWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
GANESHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-9-153] [REFERRED TO]
JAN MOHD VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-5-55] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Radhey Shyam Sharma, the petitioner in this writ petition, is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mangiabas. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner and a preliminary enquiry was conducted into the said complaints by the Sub-Divisional Officer, District Jaipur. The said report was submitted by the Collector, Jaipur along with his recommendations to the State Government After considering the aforesaid report of preliminary enquiry, the State Government passed an order in the exercise of its powers under sub-sec.(4A) of S.17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 16th July, 1984 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mangiabas, with immediate effect. A change-sheet was also served on the petitioner and the petitioner was required to submit his explanation to the same. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension passed by the State Government the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.)A notice was issued to the State Government, non-petitioner No. 1, requiring them to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted.
(3.)Caveat has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 who has also filed a reply to the writ petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.