Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 25]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Manju Devi Gurjar vs State Of Raj And Anr on 29 April, 2019

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9640/2018
Manju Devi Gurjar W/o Rahul Gurjar, aged about 32 years, B/c
Gurjar, R/o Bagwada, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur Raj.
                                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                             Versus
1.       State       Of     Raj.       Through        its    Principal        Secretary            And
         Commissioner,              Rural       Development             and       Panchayatiraj
         Department, Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division Jaipur Raj.
                                                                             ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhwat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG.

Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 29/04/2019

1. The petitioner by way this writ petition assails the order dated 28.3.2018 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.

2. Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection pointing out that the order dated 28.3.2018 is nothing but a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-Sarpanch to which the petitioner is required to file a reply. Alongwith the show-cause notice a charge-sheet has been also issued to the petitioner but no final decision has been arrived at and the writ petition is thus, premature.

3. I have considered the submissions and find that the order dated 28.3.2018 is essentially a show-cause notice asking (D.B. SAW/917/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:48:24 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-9640-2018] explanation from the petitioner on the charges which have been annexed alongwith the letter dated 28.3.2018. Unless the petitioner submits a reply to the said show-cause notice and a final conclusion is drawn, in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition would be premature as this Court would not examine merely charges levelled against the petitioner as there is no answer to the said charges.

4. Similar view has been taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2019(1)RLW856(Raj.)- Ashfaq Mohd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein this Court has held in para 15 and 17 as under:-

"15. The present petition challenges the action which may be taken on the basis of letters dated 06.11.2017 and 16.11.2017 where information has been sought about service record of the petitioner from the S.P. concerned and further, petitioner has been asked to supply information about the appeals which he has filed against the penalty orders. In the opinion of the Court, the exercise of writing letter or collecting details about service career of the petitioner, do not give cause of action at present to challenge the inter-departmental communication and further, explanation from the petitioner. The authorities may take a final view after considering the entire service record of the petitioner and at present, the exercise, which is undertaken, cannot be, subject matter of challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16.--------------------------------------------------------
17. The Court finds that the present writ petition has been filed at a premature stage and no final action adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner is taken. The Court has to confine its decision to the existing facts and may not enter into assumptions and inferences. The petitioner has approached this Court at premature stage and as such, the Court may not enter into merits of the matter, as has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner."

(D.B. SAW/917/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:48:24 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-9640-2018]

5. In view thereof, the present writ petition is held to be premature and the same is dismissed keeping it open for the petitioner to challenge consequent order if any.

6. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition the stay application is also disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J N.Gandhi/44 (D.B. SAW/917/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:48:24 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)