Allowed

Kamli @ Kamdi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Mar 2021CW/2930/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition following the ratio of two prior judgments. It quashed a recovery order dated 30.10.2020 passed against elected Sarpanches without a proper inquiry under Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry within four months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the recovery order dated 30.10.2020; remanded the matter to hold a proper inquiry under Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act within four months.

Kamli @ Kamdi Devi Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2930/2021

¶3

Kamli @ Kamdi Devi W/o Shri Chaina Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mewaron Ka Math, Gram Panchayat Dang, Panchayat Samiti - Kotra, District - Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

Jeepi Bai Garasiya W/o Shri Hunsaram Garasiya, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vpo- Mewaro Ka Math, Gram Panchayat Mewaro Ka Math, Panchayat Samiti - Kotra, District Udaipur (Raj.).

¶5

Ladu Ram Garasiya S/o Shri Maka Ram Garasiya, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 19 Malviya, Merpur, Gram Panchayat Merpur, Panchayat Samiti Kotra, Udaipur, District Udaipur (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

The Chief Engineer Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

The District Collector, Udaipur, Rajasthan. 5. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kotra, District - Udaipur.

¶12

The Additional Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kotra, District - Udaipur.

¶13

The Executive Engineer (Mnrega), Zila Parishad, Udaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Chouhan for Mr. KK Bissa, AGC

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

(2 of 4) [CW-2930/2021]

¶19

02/03/2021

¶20

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶21

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. Counsel for both the parties submit that the controversy is covered by judgment made by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 523/2018 (Kanta Middha Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.)) decided on 09.4.2018 which reads as under:-

¶22

“Learned counsel representing the parties stated that the controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 08.02.2016 rendered by a Single Bench in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13949/2015 (Har Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein this court examined import of Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act and held that liability against the persons classified under the said provision holding the post of Sarpanch, Gram Sevak, Ex officio Secretary or the Technical Officer in the various Gram Panchayats can only be imposed in accordance with the procedure provided in the said Section. This court observed at para No.14 of the said judgment as below :-

¶23

“14. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that Section 111 of the Act of 1994, which deals with liability of Members as well as Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Panchayati Raj Institutions, inter alia specifically provides that where any loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property belonging to Panchayati Raj Institution is caused as a direct consequence of neglect or misconduct on the part of members including Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of the Panchayati Raj Institution while in office, they shall be liable for the same. But, as per mandate of the said provision, before determining the extent and amount of liability of such office bearers for such loss, waste or mis-application of money or property, they are required to be served with a notice containing allegations against them and unless, they admit their liability and its amount, the competent authority or authorized officer is required to determine the liability or its extent, after recording evidence in support of allegations and after giving concerned office bearer an opportunity

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-2930/2021]

¶26

to cross-examine the witness. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in creating the demand against the petitioners, who are office bearers of various Gram Panchayats, straight away, on the basis of the inquiry conducted against their back, without adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 111 of the Act, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

¶27

The writ petitions were allowed in the following terms :-

¶28

“17. For the aforementioned reasons, the demands created against the petitioners, on the basis of the inquiry conducted in their back, without giving them an opportunity of hearing, deserve to be quashed.

¶29

18. In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the petitioners by the respondents are quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioners against the demands created, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be subject to final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the competent authority. If the petitioners are held liable for the loss, if any, caused to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the amount already deposited by them, shall be adjusted against the demand created, if any. Needless to say that if the petitioners are exonerated, the amount, if any, deposited by them or where the demand created against them is found to be less than the amount already deposited by them, the excess amount, shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs.”

¶30

In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of the Panchyat and as the recovery order dated 16.11.2017 (Annex.P/6) has been passed without holding any enquiry in terms of the Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the said order cannot stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are given liberty to hold the appropriate enquiry in terms of Section 111 of the Act to fix the liability of the petitioner as per law. The requisite exercise in this regard shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of submission of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. The stay application is also disposed of.”

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CW-2930/2021]

¶33

On such joint submission by learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is allowed in the same terms and while quashing the recovery order dated 30.10.2020 (Annex.1). The respondents are given liberty to hold the proper inquiry in terms of the Section 111 as per law. The requisite exercise shall be completed in this regard within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶35

50-Sanjay/-

Kamli @ Kamdi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamli @ Kamdi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dropati Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooja Rani Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Savitri Devi Mali Vs Chetan Kumar Sharma

Rekha Rani Vs State of Rajasthan

Kewal Ram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan