Vinod Kumar Rajoria Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5522 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11341/2021

Vinod Kumar Rajoria Son Of Shri Phoolchand, Aged About 45
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 17 (Old Number 13) Main Indira
Market, Chaksu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local
       Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Director, Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal
       Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak,
       Jaipur.
3.     The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department,
       Near Panch Batti, M.i. Road, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma For Respondent(s) :

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

01/10/2021

1. The petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order

dated 08.09.2021 passed by the State Government.

2. While maintaining that the number of children fathered by

the petitioner are only two, learned counsel submits that even if

the allegation of the respondents is assumed to be correct, the

same is a pre-election disqualification, for which the petitioner

cannot be suspended.

3. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of this

Court rendered in the case of Sameera Bano Vs. State of

Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2007 Raj. 168.

                                                                              (2 of 2)                      [CW-11341/2021]



                                   4.    Learned    counsel      navigates        the     Court       through      various

documents filed with the writ petition in relation to particulars of

the children, namely, Sachin; Geetanjli; Harsh Kumar; Gaurav;

Nisha and Sandhya and shows that all these children are of his

brother Ashok Kumar whereas the petitioner is father of two

children, namely, Vidhan and Neelam.

5. Having considered the submissions so made by the learned

counsel and upon perusal of the record, more particularly,

impugned order dated 08.09.2021 (Annex.7), this Court finds that

no separate and substantive order placing the petitioner under

suspension has been passed and only a passing remark has been

made, that too in the reference part of the order dated

08.09.2021:-

"izlax%& uxj ikfydk pkdlw ds okMZ ua- 17 ls fuokfpZr ik'kZn Jh fouksn jktksfj;k dks fuyfEcr djrs gq, dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ds laca/k esaA"

6. The matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application as well,

returnable within six weeks.

8. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated

08.09.2021, placing the petitioner under suspension, shall remain

stayed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

SUSHIL KUMAR MAHECHA /164

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)