Rajasthan
Rajasthan high court reserves order on mayor Somya Gurjar’s suspension | Jaipur News
JAIPUR: The high court on Monday reserved its order on the petition challenging the suspension of Jaipur-Greater mayor Somya Gurjar.
The court imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on Mohanlal Nama for filing an application seeking to become a party to the petition treating it as a frivolous and publicity stunt. The amount has to be deposited in the Covid relief fund.
Rajendra Prasad, counsel for Gurjar, told the court that she had been removed on the ground of ‘misconduct’ under Section-39 of the Municipalities Act, which has not been properly defined in the Act. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the complaint sent by the corporation commissioner to the state government nor in the FIR.
There was no specific allegation against the mayor in the investigation report. Referring to Sections 38, 39 and 43 of the Municipalities Act, he pleaded that the suspension proceedings be declared illegal. Prasad said even sufficient time was not given to the petitioner by the investigating officer to respond to the charges.
On the basis of the illegal inquiry report, the state government ordered an immediate judicial inquiry and suspended the petitioner from the post of mayor and three councillors which should be set aside, pleaded Prasad.
Advocate General MS Singhvi, on behalf of the state government, told the high court that the suspension of the mayor was legal under the Municipalities Act. Action could also be taken on the basis of preliminary inquiry.
The investigating officer in the matter was the regional director, local bodies, and he had conducted an independent and impartial investigation. Notice was served to the petitioner but no reply was given. The petitioner could now present her case during the judicial inquiry. Advocate general also defined the misconduct of the petitioner as per the Act.
In the petition, the acting mayor Sheel Dhabhai sought three weeks’ time from the high court to respond in support of the petitioner, which was rejected by the court. During the earlier hearing, her counsel Shiv Charan Gupta had supported the points raised in the petition.Vimal Cahudhary, counsel for Mohanlal Nama, pointed out that in the case of Jan Mohamamnd Vs state of Rajasthan, May 12, 1992, Justice J R Chopra and Y R Meena had allowed the present advocate general M S Singhvi to became a party as an intervenor on a similar petition. But the court did not allow his clients application to be a party to the petition.
The court imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on Mohanlal Nama for filing an application seeking to become a party to the petition treating it as a frivolous and publicity stunt. The amount has to be deposited in the Covid relief fund.
Rajendra Prasad, counsel for Gurjar, told the court that she had been removed on the ground of ‘misconduct’ under Section-39 of the Municipalities Act, which has not been properly defined in the Act. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the complaint sent by the corporation commissioner to the state government nor in the FIR.
There was no specific allegation against the mayor in the investigation report. Referring to Sections 38, 39 and 43 of the Municipalities Act, he pleaded that the suspension proceedings be declared illegal. Prasad said even sufficient time was not given to the petitioner by the investigating officer to respond to the charges.
On the basis of the illegal inquiry report, the state government ordered an immediate judicial inquiry and suspended the petitioner from the post of mayor and three councillors which should be set aside, pleaded Prasad.
Advocate General MS Singhvi, on behalf of the state government, told the high court that the suspension of the mayor was legal under the Municipalities Act. Action could also be taken on the basis of preliminary inquiry.
The investigating officer in the matter was the regional director, local bodies, and he had conducted an independent and impartial investigation. Notice was served to the petitioner but no reply was given. The petitioner could now present her case during the judicial inquiry. Advocate general also defined the misconduct of the petitioner as per the Act.
In the petition, the acting mayor Sheel Dhabhai sought three weeks’ time from the high court to respond in support of the petitioner, which was rejected by the court. During the earlier hearing, her counsel Shiv Charan Gupta had supported the points raised in the petition.Vimal Cahudhary, counsel for Mohanlal Nama, pointed out that in the case of Jan Mohamamnd Vs state of Rajasthan, May 12, 1992, Justice J R Chopra and Y R Meena had allowed the present advocate general M S Singhvi to became a party as an intervenor on a similar petition. But the court did not allow his clients application to be a party to the petition.
