9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to the petition averments, the petitioner came to know about an order dated 09.02.2009 (Annex.1) as issued by the Government in its Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 placing him under suspension essentially on the ground that he had caused loss to the public exchequer. According to the petitioner, he was never served with any notice either by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad or by any officer authorised by the State Government before conducting preliminary enquiry in the matter; and no preliminary enquiry had been held against him in terms of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Thus, the petitioner contends that the order dated 09.02.2009 placing him under suspension remains arbitrary and illegal. A reply to the show cause notice issued in this petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the suspension order by way of the writ petition and should put his case before the competent authority; that the order dated 09.02.2009 has been passed after adopting due pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.03.2009 with the following order:- ''List the matter on 30.3.2009, as prayed. Interim order passed on 2.3.2009 by this Court to continue till then.'' On 30.03.2009, while recording the presence of the counsel for the respondents only, the Court ordered the matter to be listed on 06.04.2009 and in relation to the interim order, again, the Court said,- ''Interim order, if any, to continue till then.'' The matter was, thereafter, taken up on 08.04.2009 and this time, while recording the presence of the counsel for the petitioner but none for the respondents, was ordered to be listed on 10.04.2009 while again directing that the interim order, if any, was to continue till then. The same is position regarding the order-sheet dated 10.04.2009 when, yet again, presence of the counsel for the petitioner was marked with none for the respondents and the matter was ordered to be listed on 17.04.2009 with the same order in relation to the interim relief that the interim order, if any, would continue till then. The record shows that the matter did not reach for consideration on 17.04.2009 and the office fixed it on 20.04.2009. However, it did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings as he alone could point out the illegalities committed by the petitioner and could show the fact that the land allotted by the petitioner was not available for allotment. It is also submitted that in case the petition succeeds, the applicant, who had been made incharge of the office of Sarpanch, would be divested of such a charge. On these submissions, the applicant prays that he be ordered to be impleaded as party respondent in this petition. In relation to the issues involved in this writ petition and its subject matter, intervention by the applicant in any manner cannot be acceded to. It had been the petitioner who got elected as Sarpanch and who has been put under suspension by the Government. Whether the action of the Government placing him under suspension is to be countenanced or not, is a matter squarely and solely between the petitioner and the Government. On the suggestion that he could point out the illegalities committed by the petitioner, the capacity of the applicant does not turn out to be more than that of a witness, if at all, he has to have any say in the enquiry against the petitioner. On such submissions, however, there is no reason that he be permit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... often it does happen that some of the matters do not reach for consideration in the regular Court hours and in the given circumstances, such notreached matters are ordered to be listed on another date, if mentioned about, and if mentioning is at all entertained by the Bench concerned. The fact that in such eventualities and circumstances, the Court has not heard the matter on merits before deciding whether to continue or to vacate the interim order is amply demonstrated by the expression used in several of the order-sheets aforesaid that the interim order would continue, 'if' existing. It is obvious that for all practical purposes, every such order had only been of placing the matter to other date without the Court having the occasion to apply itself to the record of the case so as to pass a considered order. The question is as to whether the interim order could be treated as vacated or lapsed on any of the subsequent dates when the matter did not reach i.e., on 17.04.2009, on 20.04.2009, on 29.04.2009 and on 15.05.2009? Keeping in view the ground realities, the answer, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be in the affirmative. In such matters and in relation to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal and others: AIR 1966 SC 1631 in no uncertain terms that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man remains the highest principle for the guidance of the Court in the matters of administration of justice. The Hon ble Court said,- There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: Actus curiae neminem gravabit . In A Selection of Legal Maxims by Herbert Broom (10th Edition at page 73), in relation to the said fundamental maxim that actus curiae neminem gravabit, it is stated with reference to the decided cases that,- This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law. In virtue of it, where a case stands over for argument on account of the multiplicity of business in the Court, or for judgment from the intricacy of the question, the party ought not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od; and there could also be the cases where the conduct of the petitioner would show his avoiding the matter and where the Court might not be inclined to let the interim order operate unless extended; and there could be other reasons wherefor usual currency of the interim order might not be countenanced but it cannot be assumed as a matter of course nor could be applied indiscriminately to the extent that despite there being no contrary reason, in every case the interim order must be taken as vacated if not extended irrespective whether the case has been taken up on a given date or not. It may be observed that apart from not reaching of the matter for consideration in the regular Court time, there could be several factors and reasons wherefor a matter might not come up for consideration before the Court. The events and instances are not unknown that suddenly a given day is declared a holiday or the Court remains closed for any reason or circumstance. There are various other reasons and factors wherefor even on the given working day a matter does not appear on the board or is not taken up for consideration by the Court for a fault, mistake, reason, or circumstance that could be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended However, it appears that the learned counsel for the respondents, while informing the respondents of the proceedings in the matter, chose to state in the communication dated 13.05.2009 his opinion at the postscript that there was no order continuing the interim order. This Court would not like to make much comment on such an opinion for the same having been stated before passing of this order; but the proposition of the learned counsel for the respondents about the said interim order having come to an end cannot be accepted. It is, of course, to be made clear that in this petition only a show cause notice has been issued and the petition is to be heard for admission again. No observation herein shall have any bearing or relevance for the purpose of consideration of case on the merits. However, looking to the overall circumstances of the case and the nature of dispute; in order to put the record straight; and in the interest of justice, it is considered necessary that the interim order as passed in this case be extended until further orders while placing the petition for admission. Ordered accordingly. The application (IA No.10881/2009) stands disposed of. List ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
