Omprakash Kalwa vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humble prayed that;

i) the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioners and the inquiries initiated by respondent no2 dated 01.06.2022 (anx.9) and dated 09.01.2023 (anex.12) be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside; and

ii) the respondents may kindly be ordered and directed to not to harass and humiliate the petitioner in light of the complaints made by the private persons;

iii) any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Municipality, Suratgarh on 26.11.2019. The petitioner came to know that certain persons submitted various representations before the District Collector, Sriganganagar against the petitioner, for enquiry regarding the alleged irregularities and fraudulent payments of works relating to providing, laying, joining, testing and commissioning of sewer system and other ancillary works. As per the petitioner, on the previous occasion also, certain complaints with regard to the same issue though were submitted, but later on, the complaints were withdrawn.

2.1. With regard to the complaints in question, the District Collector, constituted a Committee to enquire into the same, vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2022, and the enquiry accordingly commenced; the Committee presented its report on 01.11.2022.

2.2. In the meanwhile, the Executive Engineer, Municipality, Suratgarh had also made a representation to dispose of the earlier enquiry conducted in the year 2019.

2.3. During pendency of the enquiry, one Banwari Lal filed a complaint dated 09.01.2023, alleging that the report as submitted on 01.11.2022 was suffering from bias and based on wrong facts. The District Collector, on the basis of the same, proceeded to initiate an enquiry afresh.

2.4. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the election of the petitioner as Chairman of the Municipality, few complaints were made regarding irregularities having been committed in the execution of the project of the municipality and that certain payments were sanctioned to be made in an illegal and unauthorized manner in relation to the project, wherein enquiries had already been conducted twice; the same happened prior to election of the petitioner as Chairman of the Municipality. Therefore, initiation of the enquiry yet again on the same issue is not justified in law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the whole transaction of the illegal payment pertained to award of the contract by the respondent no.3-Corporation, and that, it was the duty of the Project Engineer to supervise the project; furthermore, the Project Engineer was authorized in regard to such payments. As per learned counsel however, despite the fact that the petitioner played no role in making illegal payments, he was being dragged by the respondents deliberately in the controversy in question; that apart, with an ulterior motive, complainant-Banwari Lal also lodged an FIR against the present petitioner, in connection with the same issue.

On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the inquiry because no communication was sent to the petitioner, in regard to the complaint in question, calling him to submit his explanation; rather the communications were made to obtain the response from the concerned Executive Engineer.

4.1. It was further submitted that a huge sum of Rs.1.45 crores, out of the public exchequer, has been disbursed, without following the due procedure, and therefore, the necessary inquiry was ordered by the District Collector.

4.2. It was also submitted that the inquiry in question has already been concluded and the report thereof has also been forwarded to the Assistant Collector (Fast Track), Sriganganagar, on 08.03.2023, and same the has also been forwarded to the Director, Local Bodies for necessary action by the District Collector, Sriganganagar, which is not under challenge in the present petition; thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, the present petition has rendered infructuous, and deserves dismissal accordingly.

4.3. It was further submitted that the petitioner assumed the charge as Chairman and an amount of about Rs. 1.45 Crores has been disbursed, during the tenure of the petitioner, on 15.03.2022, who was the signatory of the relevant note-sheets. It was also submitted that the petitioner along with the Executive Officer without ascertaining the status of the pending fact finding enquiry or verification of the works, disbursed the amount in question out of the public exchequer.

4.4. It was also submitted that as per the report dated 08.03.2023 of the fact finding enquiry conducted by the Assistant Collector (Fast Track), Sriganganagar, in pursuance of the directions of the District Collector, the petitioner was substantially involved in approving the withheld payment in question, while recording false list of verified sewerage consumers. Therefore, as per the respondents, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law.

4.5. It was also submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by this Court in the instant petition, the respondents vide order dated 24.05.2023, a decision has been taken to conduct a judicial enquiry against the petitioner under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and pending such enquiry, a decision was taken to keep the Membership & Chairmanship of the petitioner, under suspension.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

This Court observes that the certain project commenced in the Municipality on 19.02.2016. Thereafter, few complaints were received regarding the irregularities being committed in the execution of the project; in regard to the same, the enquiry was conducted twice.

This Court further observes that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Municipality on 26.11.2019; thereafter, the payment Rs.1,45,57,144/- towards the Project has been disbursed at his instance and the concerned Executive Officer; subsequently, on the same issue, yet again certain complaints against the petitioner were received, whereupon the District Collector constituted a Committee, and the said committee submitted its report on 01.11.2022. Thereafter, the District Collector, on the basis of the complaint dated 09.01.2023, ordered enquiry against the petitioner in regard to the allegations in question.

This Court further observes that the present case involves unauthorized disbursement of a huge amount out of the public exchequer. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged only initiation of the inquiry by the District Collector. This Court further observes that the entire inquiry in question has been concluded on 08.03.2023, and the said conclusion has not been challenged by the petitioner in this petition; in absence of such challenge to the conclusion of the enquiry, this Court is of the opinion that the present case does not require adjudication on merits.

Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again, in case occasion arises. All pending applications stand disposed of.