GUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil special appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated November 26, 1986, by which the appellant's writ petition, challenging the validity of orders Annexure-10 dated March 13, 1986 and Annexure-11 dated March 31, 1986 passed by the State Government, was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY recounted, the material facts are that the petitioner presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the averments that he was the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sandwa district Churu right from the year 1956 to March, 1986 On complaints being filed, an inquiry was conducted against him by the State and ultimately he was exonerated from all the charges on October 15, 1985 by the concerned Hon'ble Minister. The petitioner applied for the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, but the same was not supplied to him. At About 8. 00 a. m. on March 4, 1986, he received the telegram Annexure-12 asking him to appear to March 4. 1986 before the concerned Minister for Panchayat Rajya. He left his village by bus at 8. 30 a. m. on the same day and reached Jaipur at about 3. 30 P. M. From the bus-stand Jaipur, he reached the Rajasthan Government Secretariat at about 4. 00 p. m. He, submitted the application Annexure 9 on that very day to adjourn the matter. No order was passed on it. On March 13, 1986 he was informed by the State Government that a finding has been recorded against him under section 7 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and that he has been disqualified for holding any office for a period of five years. He was required to show cause as to why the office of Sarpanch held by him be not declared to be vacant. He was asked to appear on March 27, 1986. He could not appear before the Minister concerned on March 27, 1986 and ultimately order Annexure 11 was passed on March 31, 1986, removing him from the office of Sarpanch and declaring the said office vacant. The validity of order Annexure-10 dated March 13, 1986 regarding the finding on the charges levelled against him and the order Annexure - 11 dated March 31, 1986, by which he was removed from the office of the Sarpanch and the office of the Sarpanch was declared vacant, was challenged on the ground that once he was exonerated by the Hon'ble Minister on October 15, 1985, he could not be removed. The powers of review, under which orders Annexure-10 and Annexure-11 were passed, were wrongly exercised by the State Government under section 70-B of the Act. The powers under section 70-B were of limited nature which could be exercised only to correct any mistake of law or fact or when the original order was passed in ignorance of any material fact. This was not the situation in the instant case. Some other grounds were also urged relating to the denial of opportunity of hearing etc.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents, a clear stand has been taken that the impugned orders Annexure-10 and Annexure-11 were passed by way of review of the matter under section 70-B of the Act. We may refer to paragraphs 13 and 19 (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in this connection wherein a clear stand has been taken by the respondents that the State Government was empowered to review the entire matter and the impugned orders were passed by way of review under section 70-B of the Act. On page 18 of the return, the entire section 70-B has been reproduced to reinforce the contention that the impugned orders were passed by way of review and the State Government was competent to pass such orders in review jurisdiction. Nowhere in the reply, the respondents have taken the plea that the impugned orders Annexure- 10 and Annexure-11 were passed under section 17 of the Act. IN fact, a defence could not have been taken by them that the impugned orders were passed under section 17 of the Act because of the earlier order passed by the Minister on October 15, 1985 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. It is nobody's case in the pleadings that the impugned orders were not passed by way of review under section 70-B of the Act. IN view of all these facts, we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that the impugned orders were passed under, section 17 and not by way of review under section 70-B of the Act. IN our considered opinion, the impugned orders Annexure-10 and Annexure-11 were passed by the State Government in review jurisdiction under section 70-B of the Act.