Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 17.6.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 9.5.2002 (Annex. 3) by which the petitioner was suspended from the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bajwas by respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner), Ajmer exercising the powers under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) and placing reliance on the circular dated 16.5.2000 (Annex. 4) issued by the respondent No. 1 (the Government of Rajasthan) be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur were held in the month of February, 2000. In the said elections, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bajwas. (ii) That thereafter the petitioner received a notice (Annex. 1) from the respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer) dated 5.2.2002 purporting to be under Section 39 of the Act of 1994 and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation on 13.3.2002. (iii) That the petitioner submitted his explanation (Annex. 2) dated 13.3.2002 in compliance of notice dated 5.2.2002 (Annex. 1). (iv) It may be stated here that Sub -section (1) of Section 19 makes a person disqualified for the post of Sarpanch if he has more than two children and the object of issuance of notice dated 5.2.2002 (Annex. 1) to the petitioner was that after coming into force of Act of 1994 and on the date of election he was having more than 2 children, therefore, his election to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bajwas was illegal. (v) The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer) thereafter passed an order of suspension on 2.5.2002 (Annex. 3) stating that since an enquiry was pending against the petitioner, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 and the circular dated 16.5.2000 (Annex. 4) issued by the State Government, the petitioner was suspended. This order dated 9.5.2002 (Annex. 3) passed by respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer) has been challenged in this writ petition. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that till declaration under Section 39(2) is passed declaring the petitioner ineligible, the suspension order dated 9.5.2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer) could not be sustained and hence it should be quashed.
(3.) REPLY to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had become ineligible to hold the office of Sarpanch for the simple reason that he had more than two children and as such he was disqualified and that is why the notice dated 5.2.2002 (Annex. 1) was issued by the respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer) and the petitioner submitted reply (Annex. P -2) to the notice dated 5.2.2002 on 13.3.2002 and thereafter the parties were required to submit their evidence and the next date of hearing was fixed as 22.4.2002. On 22.4.2002, the petitioner sought adjournment and the next date of hearing was fixed as 29.4.2002 and since on that date, the petitioner did not appear, therefore, he was rightly put under suspension by order dated 9.5.2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer) Hence, this writ petition should be dismissed.;