[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deva Ram Jani vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6764) on 6 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:6764]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24687/2025
1. Deva Ram Jani S/o Simartha Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Bakaniyon Ka Was, Po Magne Ki Dhani,
District Barmer. (Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Kudla,
Panchayat Samiti Barmer Gramin, District Barmer)
2. Prahlad Ram S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident Of Rajbera, Undu, Sheo, Barmer, Rajasthan
344701 (Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Rajbera,
Panchayat Samiti Shiv, District Barmer).
3. Junja Ram S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Saiyon Ka Tala, Aadel, Barmer, (Sarpanch Of
Gram Panchayat- Adarsh Aadel, Panchayat Samiti Aadel,
District Barmer).
4. Khetoo W/o Prem Singh Ji, Aged About 33 Years, Resident
Of Sarnoo, Bhimji, Barmer, (Sarpanch Of Gram
Panchayat- Sarnu Chimanji, Panchayat Samiti Barmer
Gramin, District Barmer).
5. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Dewa Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
Residents Of Salgasar, Nokhra, Barmer. (Sarpanch Of
Gram Panchayat- Nokhra, Panchayat Samiti Aadel, District
Barmer.
6. Dudaram S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 74 Years, Resident
Of Hudo Ki Dhani, Bankasar, Sarli Barmer, Rajasthan.
(Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Sarli, Panchayat Samiti
Barmer Gramin, District Barmer).
7. Bhagi W/o Lun Khan, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of
Kayam Ki Basti, Poshal, Barmer. (Sarpanch Of Gram
Panchayat- Kayam Ki Basti, Panchayat Samiti Shiv,
District Barmer).
8. Ummed Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Mege Ka Gaon, Jasa Ka Gaon, Barmer.
(Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Hathi Singh Ka Gaon,
Panchayat Samiti Shiv, District Barmer)
9. Prayag Singh Rathore S/o Jor Singh Rathore, Aged About
63 Years, Resident Of 46, Nagana, Aarang, Jor Singh Ki
Dhani, Barmer. (Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Aarang,
Panchayat Samiti Shiv, District Barmer).
10. Pancha Ram S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 43 Years,
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 07:19:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:40:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6764] (2 of 5) [CW-24687/2025]
Resident Of Udaniyon Ki Dhani, Dabad, Gudamalani,
Barmer. (Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Dabad, Panchayat
Samiti Gudamalani, District Barmer).
11. Tej Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 65 Years, Resident
Of Payala Kala, Panyala Kalan, Barmer. (Sarpanch Of
Gram Panchayat- Lunva Jagir, Panchayat Samiti
Gudamalani, District Barmer).
12. Pempo Devi W/o Pana Ram, Aged About 65 Years,
Resident Of Aalpura, Barmer. (Sarpanch Of Gram
Panchayat- Aalpura, Panchayat Samiti Gudamalani,
District Barmer).
13. Damaram S/o Ghama Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of House No.170, Ramdevra, Panyala Kalla,
Barmer. (Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Ramdevra,
Panchayat Samiti Payla Kalan, District Barmer).
14. Ganga Ram S/o Gopu Ram Ji, Aged About 78 Years,
Resident Of Gayatri Colony, Krishi Mandi Road, Barmer.
(Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat- Shivkar, Panchayat Samiti
Barmer Gramin, District Barmer).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To
The Government, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Employment Guarantee Scheme,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Mgnarega, Section-3, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Zila Parishad Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive Officer
At Barmer.
4. District Programme Coordinator, Mgnrega, District
Collector, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Kr. Purohit
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 07:19:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6764] (3 of 5) [CW-24687/2025]
06/02/2026
By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs:
"it is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or
direction the impugn order dated 02.12.2025 (Annex.1) passed by
the respondent no.2, may kindly declared illegal and be
accordingly quashed and set aside. ...."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are Sarpanch who are aggrieved by the issuance of
office order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner, EGS,
Rural Development-cum-Panchayati Raj Department, Government
of Rajasthan, whereby a decision has been taken to investigate
complaints relating to various works undertaken for personal
benefit under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (MNREGA) in District Barmer during the period
2020-2025. As per the said order, the investigation is to be
conducted by a State-level investigation team on the basis of site
inspections and physical verification of personal works and gravel
roads on a random basis.
3. Learned counsel contended that the decision to constitute a
State-level investigation team for verification of works completed
long back under MNREGA is absolutely illegal and unjustified. It
was submitted that the works undertaken during the years 2020-
2025 were executed after due administrative and financial
sanctions, have already been completed, and payments in relation
thereto have also been made to the contractors. He further
submitted that the State-level investigation team comprises
Executive Officers, Assistant Engineers, and Assistant Accounts
Officers of Panchayat Samitis, who themselves were involved at
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 07:19:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6764] (4 of 5) [CW-24687/2025]
various stages in sanctioning, supervising, and monitoring the
works undertaken by the Gram Panchayats in terms of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Rules of 1996, and the
MNREGA Act, 2005. Therefore, according to learned counsel,
fairness in the investigation cannot be expected from such
officers.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order
dated 02.12.2025 does not provide any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners nor does it mandate their presence at the time of
inspection of the works by the State-level team. As a result, the
petitioners would not be in a position to clarify the necessity,
nature, and quality of the works executed by the Gram Panchayats
after obtaining due administrative and financial sanctions. It was
urged that the inquiry contemplated under the impugned order is
in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore,
deserves interference by this Court.
5. Heard.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon
perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 issued by the
Commissioner, EGS, Rural Development-cum-Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, this Court prima facie
finds that the State Government has ordered a preliminary or fact-
finding inquiry in relation to the works undertaken/executed by
the Gram Panchayats under the MNREGA Scheme upon receipt of
complaints. The impugned order clearly indicates that the inquiry
teams are required to physically inspect the works and, on the
basis of evidence available at the site and evaluation of records,
submit a report indicating whether any prima facie illegality or
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 07:19:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6764] (5 of 5) [CW-24687/2025]
irregularity has been committed in execution of the said works. In
other words, the committees constituted under the impugned
order are required to ascertain the correctness and veracity of the
allegations levelled regarding execution of MNREGA works.
7. The order dated 02.12.2025 further reveals that upon receipt of
the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry report, a decision shall be
taken as to whether a regular inquiry is required to be initiated
under the Panchayati Raj Act and the Rules against the
responsible officials/persons. At the stage of a full-fledged inquiry,
the delinquent or erring person shall be afforded full opportunity
to defend his case.
8. At this stage, this Court finds no reason to presume that the
inquiry would not be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. No
material has been placed on record to establish that the members
of the investigating team have any personal interest in the matter
or that they were directly or indirectly involved in the execution of
the works of the Gram Panchayats they are required to inspect.
9. Accordingly, no case for interference with the impugned order
dated 02.12.2025 is made out. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
1-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 07:19:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
