Skip to content


Ramsharan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Three ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 466/81
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)281
AppellantRamsharan
RespondentState of Rajasthan and Three ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2. after holding a preliminary enquiry against gauri shanker, the collector felt satisfied and made a report to the government along with the recommendation. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any provision of jaw on the basis of which it can be said that an order passed under rule 22 can be revised or interfered with at the instance of the petitioner, he has placed reliance on air 1972 kerala page 55. this case has no..........to the government along with the recommendation. on receiving the report from the collector, the state government drew up a statement of charges prima facie made out against respondent no. 3, gauri shanker specifying therein, the necessary details. a copy of the statement of the charges, drawn up on the basis of the record was sent to respondent no. 3 under sub-rule (2) of rule 21 of the rules. the state government also suspended respondent no. 3 vide order dated 1st may, 1979. thereafter on receipt of the representation keeping in view the findings of the enquiry officer and after affording a reasonable opportunity to gauri shanker sarpanch, the state government came to' the conclution that charges framed against respondent no. 3 were not proved. the state government vide order dated.....
Judgment:

M.L. Shrimal, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.

2. After holding a preliminary enquiry against Gauri Shanker, the Collector felt satisfied and made a report to the Government along with the recommendation. On receiving the report from the Collector, the State Government drew up a statement of charges prima facie made out against respondent No. 3, Gauri Shanker specifying therein, the necessary details. A copy of the statement of the charges, drawn up on the basis of the record was sent to respondent No. 3 under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules. The State Government also suspended respondent No. 3 vide order dated 1st May, 1979. Thereafter on receipt of the representation keeping in view the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after affording a reasonable opportunity to Gauri Shanker Sarpanch, the State Government came to' the conclution that charges framed against respondent No. 3 were not proved. The State Government vide order dated 26th February, 1981 exonerated the respondent No. 3 of all the charges framed against him and as a consequence of that order withdrew the suspension order. The petitioner being an Upsarpacnh was allowed to work as Sarpanch during the period of suspension of respondent No. 3. Now by passing of Annexure 6, he feels that he will not be allowed to work as Sarpanch and as such he claims to be an aggrieved party. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any provision of Jaw on the basis of which it can be said that an order passed under Rule 22 can be revised or interfered with at the instance of the petitioner, He has placed reliance on AIR 1972 Kerala page 55. This case has no bearing on the facts of this case.

3. The petitinner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //