Court Seeks Explanation for Eight-Year Delay in 2018 ACB Complaint
Jodhpur: In a special Sunday hearing, the Rajasthan High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to Tejpal Mirdha, former chairman and present councillor of Kuchera Municipality, in connection with an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Justice Kuldeep Mathur heard Mirdha’s petition on Sunday after his counsel sought urgent protection apprehending his arrest ahead of the Kuchera Municipality chairman’s election scheduled for September 21, 2026.
The court directed ACB Jaipur officials not to arrest Mirdha until the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for October 5, 2026.
Special Sunday hearing on plea seeking protection
The hearing was held on a Sunday after the petitioner highlighted the urgency of the matter. The special bench was constituted on the directions of the Chief Justice.
Mirdha was represented by advocates Ramavatar Chaudhary and Sumer Singh Gaur. His petition sought protection from arrest, besides an opportunity to participate in the upcoming chairman’s election.
Chairman Election Scheduled for September 21
Mirdha was elected from Ward No. 21 on September 14, 2026, and filed his nomination for the chairman’s post on September 16. The last date for withdrawal of nominations was September 18, while the chairman’s election is scheduled for September 21.
The ACB FIR was registered shortly before the election, following which Mirdha approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest.
ACB Case Relates to 2015–2018 Tenure
According to the petition, Mirdha had earlier served as chairman of Kuchera Municipality from 2015 to 2018.
A complaint was lodged before the ACB on May 4, 2018, by then Ward No. 3 councillor Shaitanram Tak.
The complaint alleged irregularities in work orders issued during Mirdha’s tenure, along with alleged financial, technical and administrative irregularities and misuse of public funds.
Counsel argued that although the complaint was filed in 2018, the FIR was registered only recently, after Mirdha was elected as a councillor and filed his nomination for the chairman’s post.
Section 17-A Approval Granted on September 18
According to the petition, the Director-cum-Special Secretary of the Local Self Government Department granted approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on September 18, 2026.
The ACB registered on the same day.
The petitioner claimed that the FIR was registered at around 11:58 PM on September 18 and alleged that it was not uploaded on the official website until around 3:30 PM on September 19.
Mirdha apprehended that his arrest would prevent him from participating in the September 21 chairman election.
State Opposes Interim Protection
The State Government, represented by Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, opposed the plea for interim protection.
The State argued that the petition did not contain a specific prayer for quashing of the FIR and that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences. It was further submitted that Mirdha had an alternative remedy of approaching the competent criminal court for anticipatory bail.
The State also contended that the FIR was not registered suddenly.
According to the government, the allegations relating to Mirdha’s 2015–2018 tenure had been examined at different levels.
The State submitted that the ACB Inspector General had sought approval under Section 17-A from the Local Self Government Department on August 24, and the approval was granted on September 18 after consideration of the available material.
Court questions delay in action on 2018 complaint
While considering the rival submissions, the High Court noted that the allegations in the FIR relate to Mirdha’s 2015–2018 tenure, while the original complaint was made in May 2018.
The court observed that, at this stage, there was no satisfactory explanation on record as to why the investigation relating to the 2018 complaint remained pending for nearly eight years and why approval under Section 17-A was granted on September 18, 2026, shortly after Mirdha was elected as a councillor and filed his nomination for the chairman’s post.
However, the court did not express any final opinion on whether the FIR amounted to unlawful interference with the election process or constituted lawful statutory action.
Court Grants Interim Protection
The High Court further held that the absence of a specific prayer for quashing the FIR, by itself, did not prevent the court from considering Mirdha’s request for interim protection from arrest.
Taking into account the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR and the upcoming chairman election, the court directed the ACB Jaipur authorities not to arrest Tejpal Mirdha in connection with FIR registered until the next date of hearing.
The petitioner has been granted liberty to make necessary amendments to the petition, while the State has been given time to file its response.
The matter will now be heard on October 5, 2026.