Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No. 9201/2019
(Balram Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated :08.05.2019
Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ishan Mehta, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
This petition is directed against the order dated 02.06.2015, whereby the orders dated 13.04.2015, 06.02.2015 and 04.06.2014, passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Additional Collector, Chhatarpur and SDO Rajnagar respectively were stayed by the Minister for Panchyat Avam Gramin Vikas, State of Madhya Pradesh.
In the present matter, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) to call for entire relevant record.
(ii) to quash the impugned order dated 2.6.2015
(Annexure P-1) and further be pleased to direct the competent authority to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Saliya in place of respondent No.4.
(iii) to direct the respondent to give seniority and arrears of salary to petitioner from 2.09.2007, if he found fit for appointment and further be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to recover the amount from the respondent No.4 as he received in the form of salary.
2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No. 9201/2019 (Balram Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.)
(iv) Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2015 passed in review petition No. F-5-39/P.2/15, however, it is seen that he is not a party to the said review petition nor a party to any of the three cases, i.e., Revision petition No.263/A-39/2014-15, Case No.51/appeal/A-89-A/13- 14 and case No.12/Appeal/13-14 mentioned above, operation of which have been stayed by the impugned order.
According to the petitioner, vide advertisement dated 08.08.2007, applications were invited for the post of Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Saliya to be filed on or before 20.08.2007, till 5 P.M. It is alleged that 15 persons applied for the post, however the Secretary considered only 5 applications and appointed respondent No.4 Rajendra Kumar Pandey as Panchayat Secretary on 02.09.2007 ignoring the merits of petitioner.
It is evident from the annexures filed alongwith the petition that one Pannalal challenged the appointment of 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No. 9201/2019 (Balram Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) respondent No.4 Rajendra Kumar Pandey before the SDO and thereafter there were many rounds of litigation between them. Various writ petitions, which were the offshoot of these proceedings are not required to be noted except the review petition filed by respondent No.4 before the Minister Panchayat Avam Gramin Vikas was allowed and three orders as mentioned above were stayed.
However, as mentioned above, the petitioner was not a party to any of the litigation. It is pertinent to note that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner even ever applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.08.2007. From the facts as mentioned in the review petition on record, the stand of the then Secretary of Panchayat was that he had received applications of only five persons, namely, Anjana Gautam, Jagannath Patel, Swami Prasad Patel, Saroj Devi and Rejendra Kumar Pandey.
Admittedly, the petitioner never objected to non- inclusion of his name in the said list, if at all he had applied nor challenged the appointment order of respondent No.4 dated 02.09.2007, from 2007 to 2019. It is thus clear that even if the petitioner was aggrieved he had not taken any 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No. 9201/2019 (Balram Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) action from 2007 to 2019, nor he was made party in any of the proceedings/petitions mentioned above. Since, he is not a party to the aforesaid review petition, he cannot be the legally aggrieved party and he has no locus to file the present petition.
The person who wants to file a petition has to show that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated.
In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465, wherein the Supreme Court has observed :-
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No. 9201/2019 (Balram Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361)."
In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that he is legally affected or aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.06.2015.
6
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No. 9201/2019 (Balram Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) In view of the aforestated legal position, this petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. The right to avail a remedy under the law is the right of every citizen but such right cannot extend to misuse the judicial process. The scarce and precious time of the court is wasted in dealing with such non-deserving petition, whereas other deserving or genuine matters have to wait in queue. Such an act of petitioner is strongly deprecated.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.3,000/-, (Rupees Three Thousand only) which is to be deposited by the petitioner online in the National Defence Fund (NDF) within a period of 30 days from today and the receipt thereof be filed before the Registry of this Court.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge gn Digitally signed by GEETHA NAIR Date: 2019.05.15 15:55:07 +05'30'