RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE fact of the case are that the respondent No. 6 was the elected Sarpanch of gram Panchayat Gegal, Panchayat Samiti Sri Nagar, District Ajmer in the election held in February 2000.
(2.) THE petitioner made a complaint against the respondent No. 6 for the misconduct and concealment of fact that the had his 5th child after the scheduled date of 1995 and he acquired the disqualification to contest the election of Sarpanch. On the basis of complaint made by the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted under Section 38 of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. The SDO recorded the statements of witnesses produced by the parties and submitted its enquiry report to the Divisional Commissioner for further action. The Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer issued a notice dated 31. 8. 2001 alongwith memorandum of charge sheet to the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 challenged the notice dated 31. 8. 2002 by filing the writ petition, which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3882/2002 which was later on withdrawn by him on 31. 1. 2003. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the enquiry, the respondent No. 6 was found guilty of misconduct and vide order dated 30. 10. 2003, the respondent No. 6 was removed from the office of Sarpanch and the post of Sarpanch was declared vacant and the charge was handed over to Shri Chotu Lal Gujar, Up-Sarpanch on 4. 11. 2003. The respondent No. 6 challenged the order dated 30. 10. 2003 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6705/2003. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner moved an application for impleadiment as party respondents and the same was allowed. The aforesaid writ petition is pending before this court of adjudication.
(3.) THE petitioner further submits that since the respondent No. 6 was not able to get the relief from this Court, he approached to the Government. THE Government vide its order dated 28. 1. 2004 rejected its earlier order dated 30. 10. 2003. Against the order dated 28. 1. 2004, the instant writ petition has filed by the petitioner on the ground that the State Government has not properly appreciated the order dated 30. 10. 2003 which was passed on the basis of the finding given by the SDO. On the question whether the petitioner has locus standi or not to file the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner referred a judgment in case of Rajendra Kumar vs. State of M. P. & Others (1), wherein MP High Court has held that for issue of a writ of co-warranto no special kind of interest in the relator is needed nor is it necessary that any of his specific legal right be infringed. It is enough for its issue that the relator is a member of the public and acts bona fide and is not a mere pawn in the game having been set up by others. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a resident of Gram panchayat Gegal and complainant, he has a right to file this writ petition. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Bharat Vyas submits that it is a third round of litigation. Earlier one Shri Laxman Gurjar has filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5406/2000 challenging the election of respondent No. 6. This Court after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable since it has been filed without exhausting the alternative remedy already provided under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Thereafter, in another writ petition filed by the petitioner which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 835/2001 raising the similar questions which are raised here in the instant writ petition. At the time of argument, the petitioner submitted that he wants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh to challenge the validity of Section 43 of the Act of 1994. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner, the writ petition was allowed to withdraw subject to challenge the validity of Section 43. Mr. Bharat Vyas further submits that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner without challenging the validity of Section 43, The petitioner job was over immediately after filing of the complaint as on the compliant, enquiry was conducted and the order was passed. The Government is competent to review its order and while exercising the power of review, the order dated 30. 10. 2003 was reviewed vide order dated 28. 1. 2004 having considered the documents and appreciating the material on the record and it was observed that the order dated 30. 10. 2003 was passed against the factual aspect of the matter and record of the case. ;