Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not felt necessary to issue formal notice to the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the determination made by the respondent No. 2 disqualifying his wife Smt. Himmat Bai under Section 39(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, hereafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder, thereby declaring her election to the Gram Panchayat, Kasar, Panchayat Samiti, Ladpura, District Kota from Ward No. 8 to be void. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that his wife contested the election to the aforementioned office in the OBC Women quota and was duly declared elected thereto. Noticing persistent dereliction of duty, she lodged a complaint against Smt. Kalpana Jain, who was posted as A.N.M. in the hospital located in the village concerned. On receiving this complaint, the Sarpanch of the village, forwarded the same to the higher authorities, for which Smt. Kalpana Jain being offended, submitted a representation before the "respondent No. 2 alleging that as the petitioners wife had given birth to her fourth child after 27.11.1995, she was disqualified from contesting the election. On receiving this representation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner's wife, who duly submitted her reply alongwith all necessary documents demonstrating in clear terms that her last child was born on 27.4.1992, and that, the allegation that she was disqualified, was wholly baseless. It has been alleged by the petitioner that inspite of this, without making any enquiry as contemplated in law, the respondent No. 2 by his order issued in August, 2004 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition), held her to be disqualified under Section 39(2) of the Act and cancelled her membership to the aforenamed gram panchayat.
(3.) THE learned counsel has reiterated the above and sought for the intervention of this Court on the ground that not only the impugned order has been mechanically passed without reference to the actual facts involved, it lacks bona fide as well, besides being in contravention of the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Act. In course of the arguments, he further disclosed that a similar challenge has been laid by his wife against the same order. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded averments and the documents on record, we are not inclined to interfere on merits in this parallel proceeding. As the same decision has been challenged by the petitioner's wife, as is submitted before us, we are of the opinion that the instant petition ought not to be entertained to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. It is thus closed.;