MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, an elected Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Merta City, was placed under suspension by an order dated 15. 11. 2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Government, however, the order aforesaid came to be stayed by this Court in SBCWP No. 6647/2006 on 29. 11. 2006 after hearing the parties.
(2.) AN explanation from the petitioner thereafter under a communication dated 23. 1. 2007 was sought by the Government relating to several allegations, those were said to be found prima facie proved in a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director (Administration), Department of Local Self Government. A reply denying all the allegations was given by the petitioner but the Government under an order dated 11. 6. 2007 decided to hold a regular inquiry against her as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1959" ). By the same order the petitioner was also suspended from the office of Chairperson as well as from the membership of the Board, thus, this petition for writ to challenge the order dated 11. 6. 2007 is preferred on following grounds:- (1) the order impugned was passed without application of mind and in quite mechanical manner for the reason that before placing the petitioner under suspension a preliminary inquiry was conducted and on basis of that explanation was sought which was adequately responded, however, the order dated 11. 6. 2007 nowhere discloses as to how the explanation was considered and on what basis decision was taken to hold an inquiry as per Section 63 of the Act of 1959 and to place the petitioner under suspension; (2) the petitioner being a democratically elected member of the Municipal Board and also Chairperson of the Municipal Board could have not been removed from the office in normal course otherwise then carrying a No Confidence Motion, but the respondents only with a view to avoid stringent provisions relating to No Confidence Motion adopted an unfair way to oust the petitioner from the office only to favour one Smt. Shakuntala Devi and for certain other extraneous reasons including that the petitioner is from a party i. e. in opposition to the present ruling party in the State; (3) the placement of the petitioner under suspension is highly arbitrary as before doing so it was not spelled out as to how the petitioner was in a position to influence a judicial inquiry and also to tamper with the evidence, if any available against her; (4) by the order dated 15. 11. 2006 the petitioner was placed under suspension and the aforesaid order was stayed by the Court after hearing the respondent State and despite having within the knowledge all those charges for which now inquiry is ordered to be conducted, thus, the order impugned is apparently passed to frustrate the interim order granted by this Court on 29. 11. 2006; and (5) the petitioner could have not been held responsible for any charge levelled, as according to Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Purchase of Material and Contracts) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1974") no contract could have been entered into for the purchase of materials/goods or for the execution of work without the prior administrative and financial sanction and for that in the present controversy the Executive Officer was the authority competent. In reply to the writ petition the stance of the respondents is that the petitioner was placed under suspension under the order dated 15. 11. 2006 as she did not summon meeting of the Board despite written request made by 12 members, whereas the suspension under the order dated 11. 6. 2007 was made on being satisfied that prima facie allegations of misconduct were found established, hence, there was no question of making any effort to frustrate the interim order dated 29. 11. 2006. The allegation of extraneous consideration and also regarding favour to Smt. Shakuntala Devi are denied with an assertion that the charge relating to the office of Chairperson was to be given to aforesaid Smt. Shakuntala Devi in view of the provisions of Section 69-A of the Act of 1959 being the office concerned reserved for Female (General) category. A copy of the preliminary inquiry report is also placed on record to substantiate the contention that conduct of the petitioner is under heavy clouds looking to serious allegations of her indulgence in corrupt activities. Submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 2 who is Minister of Government of Rajasthan for Department of Local Self is also submitted and so also by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Merta City.
(3.) WITH the consent of counsel for the parties the petition for writ is finally heard at admission stage. Before coming to merits of the question posed to be resolved by this Court, I consider it appropriate to mention that Part-IX consisting of Articles 243 to 243-O and Part-IX-A comprising Articles 243-P to 243-ZG were inserted to Constitution of India by 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment with an aim to revitalise Local Self Government by promoting greater community participation and involvement in development efforts and also in local governance. Chapter-IX and IX-A provides Rural and Urban Local Governments with a Constitutional status. The provisions of the parts referred above not only mandate for regular elections for local bodies but mandatorily provides reservation for women and for traditionally disadvantaged groups those are Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. With Local Governments being a State subject in Schedule-VII of the Constitution, Parts IX and IX-A also authorise State Legislatures to enact legislation to devolve powers and resources to local bodies so as to enable them to play a vital role in creation and maintenance of public service, public goods and in planning and implementation of development of activities. By various provisions under Parts-IX and IX-A of the Constitution all efforts are made for strengthening and for empowerment of local bodies being basic unit of democratic system and no provision is there for interference in democratic set up of those bodies through administrative fiat. ;