Manju Devi W/O Shri Rajbahadur Vs State of Rajasthan

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Devli Village, District Tonk in the year 2015. A charge-sheet has been served upon her with the allegation that certain pattas were prepared with fix signatures in the name of her husband in the year 2014.

¶18

[2025:RJ-JP:25816]

¶19

[CW-5825/2024]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

Counsel submits that the petitioner was Sarpanch at the relevant time.

¶22

Counsel submits that a charge-sheet, with similar allegations, was served upon the husband of the petitioner, while he was holding the post of Sarpanch prior to 2010. Counsel further submits that with regard to similar allegations, a complaint was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, wherein a preliminary enquiry was conducted, but no F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner, hence, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed and set-aside and under these circumstances, allegations levelled against the petitioner has no bearing, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition has become infructuous as after serving chargesheet upon the petitioner, an enquiry has been conducted and final orders have been passed by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 25.07.2024 by which the petitioner has been declared as disqualified for election to the Panchayati Raj Institution for five years. Counsel submits that under the changed circumstances, no cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with this writ petition and this writ petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone.

¶24

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶25

Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that after issuance of the charge-sheet, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and final orders have been passed against her on

[2025:RJ-JP:25816]

[CW-5825/2024]

(3 of 3)

25.07.2024, now, no cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with this writ petition and under the changed circumstances, this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶30

The instant writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the subsequent order dated 25.07.2024, before the appropriate forum of law and take all these arguments, which have been taken before this Court, before appropriate forum of law.

¶31

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

Aayush Sharma /22

Manju Devi W/O Shri Rajbahadur v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Devi W/O Shri Rajbahadur v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Son of Shri Nanu Vs Smt. Kamladevi W/O Shri Madansingh

Moolchand Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.

District Collector Vs Shri Rajkumar S/O Shri Radhey Shyam

Narendra Singh Dhakad S/O Shyamlal Dhakad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash Vs Principal Secretary

Mahesh Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash Vs Principal Secretary