Ramswroop Bhati vs The State Of Rajasthan
2025 Latest Caselaw 12564 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramswroop Bhati vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

  [2025:RJ-JD:38752]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15734/2025

  Ramswroop Bhati S/o Mohan Lal Bhati, Aged About 38 Years,
  Ward No.3, Jaitaran District Beawar.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
  1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Cum Secretary,
           Directorate Local Self Department, Jaipur.
  2.       The Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department,
           Ajmer.
  3.       Dy. Director (Vigilance), Local Self Department, Jaipur.
  4.       Asstt. Director (Vigilance), Local Self Department, Jaipur.
  5.       Municipal Board Jaitaran, District Beawar Through Its
           Executive Officer.
  6.       Avinash      Gehlot,    Local      Mla     Jaitaran       District   Beawar.
           Presently Cabinet Minister, Department Of Social Welfare
           And Justice, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondents


  For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Ramawatar Singh
                                    Mr. Yuvraj Singh
  For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG assisted by
                                    Mr. Ayush Gehlot
                                    Mr. Monal Chugh



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

Reportable

29/08/2025

By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (2 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

(i) The impugned order of suspension dated 11.08.2025 (Ann.26) passed by respondent no. 1 kindly be declare highly arbitrary, unjust, malafide one and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The inquiry initiated by the respondent no. 1 under section 39 of the Act of 2009 in pursuance of the preliminary inquiry report dated 09.07.2025 and show cause notice dated 01.08.2025 may kindly be summoned.

(iii) The entire proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary inquiry report dated 09.07.2025 and show cause notice dated 01.08.2025 may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. ...."

2. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition

itself is being heard finally and decided on its merits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is an elected representative holding the post of

Chairman of Municipal Board, Jaitaran.

4. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner

has been placed under suspension malafidely by the Director,

Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur-

Respondent No.1 in arbitrary exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009

(hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 2009') vide order impugned

dated 11.08.2025.

5. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted

that prior to issuance of the impugned order of suspension dated

11.08.2025, the respondent No.1 vide order dated 26.05.2025

suspended the petitioner on the ground of alleged illegalities

committed by him in issuing pattas during the campaigning of

'Prashashan Shahron Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021'. Learned counsel

submitted that the order of suspension dated 26.05.2025 was

challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B.

CWP No.11384/2025: "Ram Swaroop Bhati v. State of

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (3 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

Rajasthan & Ors.". He further submitted that this Court after

hearing the parties vide order dated 11.06.2025 has stayed the

effect and operation of the suspension order dated 26.05.2025. A

direction was further issued to the respondents to complete the

judicial inquiry against the petitioner in conformity with the

provisions of the Act of 2009, within a period of two months.

6. Learned counsel submitted that after order of suspension

dated 26.05.2025 was stayed by this Court, the respondents, only

with a view to dislodge the petitioner from the present post on the

basis of complaint dated 18.05.2025 received by them from one

Devish Kuldeep with regard to issuance of certain residential

pattas by the Municipal Board, Jaitaran, in alleged violation of the

master plan and the procedure provided under relevant Rules and

Township Policy- 2010, the Assistant Director (Vigilance) of the

respondent department vide a letter dated 23.07.2024 called a

factual report from Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Jaitaran.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the Executive Officer,

Municipal Board, Jaitaran in his report dated 04.07.2025 did not

express any definite opinion regarding issuance of pattas by the

petitioner in violation of the master plan and the procedure

provided under relevant Rules and Township Policy- 2010,

however, while concluding the report, it was also stated that the

land qua which the residential pattas have been issued falls within

the prohibited area of peripheral control area as per the master

plan.

8. Learned counsel submitted that despite no definite finding

regarding illegality or irregularity being committed by the

petitioner in issuance of such pattas has been recorded by the

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (4 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Jaitaran in his report dated

04.07.2025, yet the Deputy Director (Regional) Local Self

Government, Ajmer in the communication dated 09.07.2025 sent

by him to the Assistant Director (Vigilance), Local Self

Government Rajasthan, Jaipur stated that as per the facts and

documents provided to him by the Executive Officer Municipal

Board, Jaitaran with his report, it appears that the petitioner had

committed illegality in issuing 58 residential plots.

9. The Director, Local Self Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

thereupon, issued a show cause notice dated 01.08.2025 to the

petitioner to which reply was filed by the petitioner on

11.08.2025. The petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice

dated 01.08.2025 denied all the allegations. Learned counsel

submitted that without considering the reply dated 11.08.2025

submitted by the petitioner, the Director Local Self Government of

Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 11.08.2025 suspended the

petitioner which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

10. Navigating this Court through the various provisions of the

Act of 2009, Township Policy- 2010, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,

1956 and Rajasthan Urban Areas (Permission for use of

Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes and Allotment

Rules, 2012), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

right from the submission of the application till grant of pattas, the

entire proceedings are required to be undertaken by the

Engineers, ATP, if posted or Senior Assistants, Executive Officer

etc. It is only when the entire proceedings are completed by the

officials of Municipality with their recommendation for issue or

denial of pattas in favour of the applicants, the role of Chairman of

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (5 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

the Municipality who is also a head of the Empower Committee of

the Municipality constituted for this purpose comes in the picture.

A Chairman who is not a technical expert is not supposed to

interfere with the day to day working of the technical experts

posted in the Municipality. Learned counsel submitted that there is

no provision under any act, rule or circular on the basis of which

decision to issue pattas of any nature can be issued/circulated by

the Chairman independently without holding an inquiry or

receiving report by the officials of Municipality. He submitted that

as a matter of fact, before placing a file for signature of Chairman

for issue of patta, the sub-ordinate authorities are/were under an

obligation to check the entire documents and examine the same in

respect thereof.

11. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that no material

whatsoever has been placed on record to establish that the

petitioner by misusing his position has pressurized officials of the

Municipal Board to submit report for issuance of pattas in the

present case in a specific manner or had issued 58 residential

pattas for certain extraneous considerations. He submitted that in

the present case, the pattas in question were issued/signed by the

petitioner under a bona fide impression that the entire documents

have been properly checked by the concerned authorities/officials

of the Municipal Board, Jaitaran. On these grounds, learned

counsel implored this Court to quash and set aside the order of

suspension dated 11.08.2025 issued by the Director, Local Self

Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently

and fervently submitted that since the order of suspension dated

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (6 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

11.08.2025 has been issued by the respondent- Director, Local

Self Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur after taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in exercise

of the powers vested on him in Section 39 of the Act of 2009, the

same does not call for any interference by this Court.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is

totally wrong to contend that the petitioner has been suspended

only with a view to overcome the interim order dated 11.06.2025

passed by this Court in S.B. CWP No.11384/2025: "Ram

Swaroop Bhati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. He submitted that

the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint

received by the Deputy Director (Vigilance) are totally different

than those allegations of irregularities committed by him during

the 'campaign of Prashashan Shashron Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021'.

He further submitted that in the fact finding inquiry conducted

against the petitioner, the allegations levelled against him by

Devish Kuldeep in complaint dated 18.05.2025 have prima facie

found to be correct and, therefore, an order to suspend the

petitioner till completion of judicial inquiry initiated against him as

per Section 39 (3) of the Act of 2009 was passed. Learned counsel

submitted that in case, the petitioner is permitted to continue on

the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Jaitaran, then the

possibility of his tampering with the records and influencing the

witnesses cannot be ruled out.

14. Learned counsel submitted that the argument of learned

counsel for the petitioner that he being the Chairman of the

Municipality was not responsible to meticulously examine the

records before issuing pattas is not tenable in the eyes of law as

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (7 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

the Chairperson of the Municipality and the Empowered

Committee was ultimately responsible to check the veracity of all

the documents and ensure that no mandatory rules/provisions

under relevant statute are being violated.

15. He further submitted that upon receiving the complaint with

regard to the alleged irregularity in issuance of patta, the steps to

initiate disciplinary inquiry against other erring officers of the

Municipal Board, Jaitaran have already been taken.

16. Drawing attention of the Court towards order dated

21.04.2022, learned counsel submitted that in the present case

pattas have been issued for establishing a residential colony

(Ayodhya Nagar) in violation of master plan of Jaitaran (2009-

2033) though apparently, Khasra Nos.17, 18, 19 and 20 qua

which the pattas have been issued are falling under the Peripherial

Control Belt. Further, requisite internal and external development

charges have not been deposited by the patta holders thereby

causing financial loss to the Municipality. Learned counsel thus

submitted that the entire proceedings relating to issuance of

pattas have been conducted de hors the rules. The Empowered

Committee of which the petitioner is Chairman deliberately,

approved the layout plan and granted patta over the Peripherial

and Green Belt.

17. Attention of the Court was also drawn towards the report of

the Senior Town Planner, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur dated 02.05.2024

in which the Senior Town Planner indicated various irregularities

and illegalities committed by the Municipal Board, Jaitaran in

granting pattas over the Peripherial and Green Belt. Learned

counsel submitted that as per the order dated 28.09.2021 issued

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (8 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

by the respondent department an Empowered Committee had to

be constituted with mayor/chairman/president of the local body

(Nagar Palika, Nagar Parishad, Municipal Corporation); Senior

Town Planner; Senior Engineer and Executive Officer of the local

body. In the present case, the Empowered

Committed was however, committed in the absence of Senior

Town Planner and by including Junior Engineer. The Constitution of

Empowered Committee was thus improper and illegal.

18. Learned counsel empathetically submitted that in the present

case, the portion of land qua which the pattas were issued on the

basis of layout plan, was never approved in accordance with law.

This is for the reason that as per the order of State Government

dated 21.04.2022 before conducting the layout proceedings under

Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act, a technical report has to

be prepared by the Town Planner and in case, the Town Planner is

not available/posted in the Municipality concerned, then the report

has to be prepared by some other Senior Town Planner whereas in

the present case, the aforesaid requirements of the order dated

21.04.2022 was not fully complied with.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the

decision to suspend the petitioner who is an elected representative

has been taken on the basis of the fact finding inquiry or

preliminary inquiry, as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act

of 2009 then, the same is not required to be interfered with by

this Court particularly when no procedural irregularity in issuing

order of suspension has been pointed out by the petitioner in the

present case.

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (9 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

20. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed

reliance on the following judgments:-

1. Nirmal Kumar Pitaliya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17285/2021).

2. Monika Khatotiya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13606/2025).

3. Smt. Sita Devi Gujar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.239/2025).

4. Rasida Khatoon v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11862/2024).

21. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though it is true that initially, layout plan for establishing a

residential colony namely 'Ayodhya Nagar' was submitted but later

on, on the basis of applications submitted by the individual

applicants, individual pattas were issued to them after deposition

of their taxes and charges for issuance of such patta. Learned

counsel submitted that it is totally wrong to contend that any

patta has been issued in the prohibited area.

22. Learned counsel contended that the Empowered Committee

in the Municipality as per the order dated 28.09.2021, can be

constituted in the absence of Senior Town Planner/Town Planner

and the minimum quorum required for conducing meeting of the

Empowered Committee is of three presiding members only

therefore, no illegality whatsoever has been done by the petitioner

in constituting the Empowered Committee and conducting its

meetings. The relevant provision under order dated 28.09.2021 in

this regard reads as under:-

"(i) mijksDr ,EikoMZ desVh ds }kjk vko";drk vuq:i fof/k vf/kdkjh@ys[kkf/kdkjh dks fo"ks'k vkefU=r lnL; ds :i esa vkefU=r fd;k tk ldsxkA

(ii) ftu uxjh; fudk;ksa esa uxj fu;kstu vf/kdkjh inLFkkfir ugh gS] rks lacaf/kr ftyk uxj fu;kstd] uxj fu;kstu foHkkx vFkok eq[; uxj fu;kstd] jktLFkku }kjk vf/kd`r uxj fu;kstd dks lnL; ds :i esa vkefU=r fd;k tk ldsxkA

(iii) mijksDr ,EikoMZ desVh esa U;wure 3 lnL;ksa dk dksje gksxk] rFkk mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds cgqer ls fu.kZ;

fy;s tkosxsaA v/;{k }kjk cSBd esa mifLFkr ugh gks ikus dh fLFkfr esa eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh }kjk cSBd dh

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (10 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

v/;{krk dh tk,xhA desVh ds lnL; lfpo dk nkf;Ro gksxk fd desVh dh cSBd ds fnu gh cSBd dk;Zokgh fooj.k tkjh fd;k tkdj izfr fudk; dh osclkbZV ij viyksM fd;k tk,xkA "

23. In support of his rebutted, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments/orders:-

1. Meena Vyas v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7999/2008).

2. Jan Mohd. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. C.W.P. No.251/1992).

3. Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4390/2024).

24. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the

material available on record.

25. In the present case, detailed arguments on each of the

charge levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice

dated 01.08.2025 have been made before this Court. However,

keeping in view the fact that a judicial inquiry against the

petitioner has already been ordered in conformity with the

provisions of Municipality Act, 2009, this Court is not inclined to

examine the merits of the allegations levelled against the

petitioner.

26. In the case at hand, the petitioner is an elected

representative working as Chairman of Municipal Board, Jaitaran

prior to passing of impugned order of suspension, he was

suspended vide order dated 26.05.2025 in exercise of the powers

under Section 39 (6) of the Act of 2009. The order of suspension

dated 26.05.2025 was stayed by this Court vide order dated

11.06.2025 by passing a detailed order. The respondents, after

passing of the order dated 11.06.2025, acted in a lightning speed

against the petitioner and completed fact finding inquiry against

him pursuant to the complaint dated 18.05.2024 filed by Devish

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (11 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

Kuldeep and again suspended him vide the impugned order dated

11.08.2025. It is pertinent to note here that till 11.06.2025 after

receiving complaint from Devish Kuldeep, respondents only called

report from Executive Officer Municipal Board, Jaitaran which did

not disclose any gross perversity or irregularity in issuing the

pattas at the end of the petitioner.

27. Be that as it may, the detailed procedure provided under the

Municipality Act, Land Revenue Act and Rajasthan Urban Areas

(Permission for use of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural

Purposes and Allotment Rules, 2012) embarks a duty upon the

technical and sub-ordinate staff of the Municipality to check the

documents submitted by an applicant seeking issuance of patta in

his favour and after holding an inquiry in the matter placed it

before the Empowered Committee/Chairman of the Municipality

for approval and issuance of pattas. Thus, the question as to

whether all the concerned Municipality Officials acted under the

influence of the Chairman i.e. petitioner before processing the files

and preparing the pattas is a subject of inquiry/judicial inquiry

initiated by the respondents against the petitioner and other

officials of the Municipalities.

28. In the opinion of this Court, the object of placing an

incumbent under suspension against whom inquiry/judicial inquiry

has already been initiated is to avoid risk of influencing witnesses,

tampering with records, or ensuring a fair investigation. However,

the yardsticks applicable for suspending a public representative

would always be different from suspending a government servant.

A public representative gets elected as member of the local body

for a limited period of time by contesting the elections. While

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (12 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

holding the office, a public representative is expected to work with

the aid and advice of the government officials in the larger public

interest. Otherwise, he does not possess any technical expertise to

discharge his duties. Thus, a particular act has been done by the

elected representative i.e. issuance of patta in the present case

when the files are placed before him/her after examination of

documents by the government officials then he/she is normally

expected to accept the same as such unless something contrary to

it is brought on record. This Court is of the firm view that if a

public representative is allowed to be suspended on mere

complaints or suspicion of committing irregularities without any

specific allegation of corruption or proof in support thereof then

the same would not only be against the wishes of the public at

large which had elected him but will also be detrimental to his own

interest as he would not get full tenure in the office to discharge

the public work for which he has been elected. The elections in

India ensure representation of different groups, communities and

ideologies in the democratic process and re-affirm faith of public in

law institutions and democracy itself. Therefore, a public

representative should be allowed to hold office, to take decisions

in public interest till completion of his tenure to represent the will

of the electors. It is a settled law that the mere availability of

power to suspend does not automatically mean that suspension

must be imposed in every case. The power to place under

suspension available to respondent No.1 under Section 39 of the

Act of 2009 is not a mandatory or mechanical consequence but a

discretionary power to be exercised cautiously and judiciously in

[2025:RJ-JD:38752] (13 of 13) [CW-15734/2025]

the cases where it is imperative to prevent an elected

representative from discharging his duties.

29. At the same time, this Court lose sight of the fact that a

public representative while discharging his duties is required to

maintain high standards of honesty and integrity. Thus, keeping in

view the aforesaid factual situation in the matter, this Court deems

it just and proper to direct respondent No.1 to seal the entire

proceedings pertaining issuance to pattas in question and place it

before the judicial officer before whom the judicial inquiry shall be

conducted against the petitioner. It is expected from the judicial

officer that the judicial inquiry against the petitioner shall be

conducted as expeditiously as possible without granting

unnecessary adjournments to the petitioner.

30. In view of the discussions made above, the instant writ

petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The

suspension order dated 11.08.2025 issued against the petitioner

by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside.

31. All pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 1-himanshu/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)