Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


PAWAN KUMAR GOWADIYA v STATE & ANR. - CW Case No. 5077 of 2004 [2004] RD-RJ 716 (13 December 2004)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5077/2004

Pawan Kumar Gowadiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

Date of Order : 13-12-2004


Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the petitioner.

Mr. N.M. Lodha, AAG for the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Municipal Board,

Sagwara. A notice was issued to the petitioner under

Section 63 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the proceedings under Section 63 may not be initiated against the petitioner on the allegations referred in the notice dated 16.8.2004 Annexure-1. The petitioner submitted reply to the allegations vide Annexure-2. After considering the petitioner's reply, the State Government passed the order under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities

Act, 1959 suspending the petitioner, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-3. The charge was handed over to one Shri Hemant Kumar who is member of Ward No.15 of the

Municipal Area, Sagwara.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the suspension order Annexure-3 by which he was suspended.

The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and submitted that the father of the petitioner

Shri Dhanraj had two wives namely Smt. Subhadra Devi and

Smt. Pushpa Devi. One application was filed for allotment of land under signature of Subhadra Devi and another application was moved in the name of Pushpa Devi. On the said applications, orders were passed for giving these plots to both these applicants. By this, petitioner in fact passed the order of allotment of land in favour of his own mothers. It is also alleged by the respondent that before the said orders of allotment of the plots in favour of one of the mother of the petitioner Pushpa Devi, she already expired long before said allotment. There are other allegations also against the petitioner which are mentioned in Annexure-1.

In view of the above facts, there appears to be disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition.

The petitioner cannot be entertained to hold any enquiry with respect to the allegations levelled against the petitioner as it is to be done under the Act of 1959.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. [PRAKASH TATIA],J.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.