Rajasthan High Court Quashes Suspension of Jaitaran Municipal Board Chairman | Says Suspending Public Representative on Mere Allegations Without Proof Harms Public Interest
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur allowed a petition by the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Jaitaran, challenging his suspension under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, over alleged irregularities in issuing residential pattas. The Court held that suspending an elected representative on mere allegations of procedural lapses would undermine public interest and the democratic mandate. Justice Mathur observed that public representatives are expected to act with the aid of government officials and ordinarily rely on their examination of records unless clear evidence to the contrary emerges. The Court quashed the suspension and ordered the related records sealed for judicial inquiry.
The petitioner, Ramswroop Bhati, an elected representative serving as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Jaitaran, challenged his suspension under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The suspension was based on allegations of irregularities in the issuance of 58 residential pattas, allegedly in violation of the Jaitaran master plan and Township Policy-2010.
Earlier, Bhati had been suspended on 26 May 2025 for alleged irregularities during the ‘Prashashan Shahron Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021.’ That suspension was stayed by the High Court on 11 June 2025, which directed the respondents to complete the judicial inquiry within two months. Subsequently, based on a complaint dated 18 May 2025 by one Devish Kuldeep, a fact-finding inquiry was conducted. The Executive Officer, in a report dated 4 July 2025, offered no definite conclusion but noted that the land in question fell within the prohibited peripheral control area. Despite this, the Deputy Director (Regional) concluded that Bhati had committed illegality in issuing 58 pattas.
On 1 August 2025, a show cause notice was issued to Bhati, to which he replied on 11 August 2025, denying all allegations. Without considering his reply, the Director, Local Self Department, suspended him the same day. The petitioner contended that the issuance of pattas was a process overseen by technical officials, with the Chairman’s role limited to final approval after their scrutiny. He denied any misuse of authority or influence over officials.
The respondents argued that the suspension was justified, as the petitioner, being head of the Empowered Committee, bore ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with laws. They alleged that pattas were issued for establishing the Ayodhya Nagar colony in violation of the Jaitaran master plan (2009–2033) and without payment of necessary development charges. They further argued that the Empowered Committee was improperly constituted, lacking a Senior Town Planner, and cited reports from the Senior Town Planner, Jodhpur Zone, pointing to irregularities.
The petitioner rebutted that individual pattas were issued lawfully after applicants deposited requisite charges, and none were granted in prohibited areas. He argued that the Empowered Committee’s constitution complied with the order dated 28 September 2021, which permitted quorum with three members even in the absence of a Senior Town Planner. Reliance was placed on precedents including Meena Vyas v. State of Rajasthan, Jan Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan, and Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
The Court noted: “It is pertinent to note here that till 11.06.2025 after receiving complaint from Devish Kuldeep, respondents only called report from Executive Officer Municipal Board, Jaitaran which did not disclose any gross perversity or irregularity in issuing the pattas at the end of the petitioner.”
The Court further observed: “The detailed procedure provided under the Municipality Act, Land Revenue Act and Rajasthan Urban Areas (Permission for use of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes and Allotment Rules, 2012) embarks a duty upon the technical and sub-ordinate staff of the Municipality to check the documents… Thus, the question as to whether all the concerned Municipality Officials acted under the influence of the Chairman… is a subject of inquiry.”
Justice Mathur addressed the scope of suspension powers: “The object of placing an incumbent under suspension against whom inquiry/judicial inquiry has already been initiated is to avoid risk of influencing witnesses, tampering with records, or ensuring a fair investigation. However, the yardsticks applicable for suspending a public representative would always be different from suspending a government servant.”
The Court stated: “A public representative gets elected as member of the local body for a limited period of time by contesting the elections. While holding the office, a public representative is expected to work with the aid and advice of the government officials in the larger public interest. Otherwise, he does not possess any technical expertise to discharge his duties.” It added: “If a public representative is allowed to be suspended on mere complaints or suspicion of committing irregularities without any specific allegation of corruption or proof in support thereof then the same would not only be against the wishes of the public at large which had elected him but will also be detrimental to his own interest.”
Importantly, the Court remarked: “It is a settled law that the mere availability of power to suspend does not automatically mean that suspension must be imposed in every case. The power to place under suspension… is not a mandatory or mechanical consequence but a discretionary power to be exercised cautiously and judiciously.”
The Court directed: “Respondent No.1 to seal the entire proceedings pertaining issuance to pattas in question and place it before the judicial officer before whom the judicial inquiry shall be conducted against the petitioner.” It further stated: “It is expected from the judicial officer that the judicial inquiry against the petitioner shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to the petitioner.”
“In view of the discussions made above, the instant writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The suspension order dated 11.08.2025 issued against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. All pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramawatar Singh, Mr. Yuvraj Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG, assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Monal Chugh
Case Title: Ramswroop Bhati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:38752
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15734/2025
Bench: Justice Kuldeep Mathur
