- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6-1-2011 passed by the Dy.Secretary (Enquiry) Government of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Department Jaipur whereby the order dated 28-2-2004 has been recalled and the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar has been directed to re-enquire the matter.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 28-2-2004 the Dy. Secretary (Enquiry) Government of Rajasthan allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein after 'the Rs.1994 Act') and set aside the order dated 4-1-2002 whereby the State Government exercising its powers under Section 38(1)(b) of the 1994 Act found the petitioner guilty of misconduct in discharging of his duties as Sarpanch. Mr.Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 6-1-2011, the State Government has sought to review the order dated 28-2-2004 and directed that the matter in issue be re-enquired by the Chief Executive Officer. Counsel submits that the order dated 6-1-2011 is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioner has long ceased to be Sarpanch and is an old man of about 75 years living a quiet existence in the dawn of his life. He submits that the recommencement of an enquiry belatedly 7 years after his exoneration is malafide and arbitrary for with the passage of so much time the petitioner would not even be in a position to defend himself effectively. Mr. Jinesh Jain would submit that the State Government has power to review its order under Section 97 (3) of the 1994 Act and in the exercise of said power the order dated 28-2-2004 has been reviewed. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. The State Government indeed has power to review an order under Section 97 (3) of the 1994 Act, which reads as under:- 97. Power of revision and review by Government: (3) The State Government may, of its own motion or on an application received from any person interested, at any time, within ninety days of the passing of an order under sub-section (1) review any such order if it was passed by it under any mistake, whether of fact or of law, or in ignorance of any material fact. The provision contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) shall apply to a proceeding under this sub-section. A bare look at the Section 97 (3) of the 1994 Act shows that albeit the State Government has power to review its order, the said power to review is limited and to be exercised within ninety days of the order sought to be reviewed. Admittedly the impugned order dated 6-1-2011, whereby the State Government has reviewed the order dated 28-2-2004, has been passed after a delay of about seven years and is obviously beyond the period of ninety days. The State Government could not have review its order dated 28-2-2004 with reference to Section 97 (3) of the 1994 Act in the year 2011. The order dated 6-1-2011 is without jurisdiction. Even otherwise the impugned order dated 6-1-2011 is a non-speaking order and palpably arbitrary one putting the petitioner, a 75 years old to the daunting prospect of defending himself after several years of the alleged misconduct when he would no doubt find it impossible to marshall facts and witnesses in his defence. I therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6-1-2011 passed by the Dy. Secretary (Enquiry) Government of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Department Jaipur.
(3.) STAY application also stands disposed of.;