Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Mishra vs Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju on 26 September, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
WRIT PETITION No. 6413 of 2022
ANURAG MISHRA
Versus
RAJKUMAR SHARMA @ RAJU AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri A.S. Bhadauria - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri B.M. Patel - Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
ORDER
th (Delivered on 26 day of September, 2024)
1. Present petition is preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution taking exception to order dated 7.02.2022 and 28.09.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena whereby review petition preferred by petitioner was dismissed by affirming order dated 28.09.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena.
2. Facts in brief giving rise to the instant petition are that ancestor of petitioner namely Thakurdeen was muafidar of the temple Shri Vankhandeshwar Mahadev, Bhind and in the year 1860 Maharaja Jiyajirao enhanced the amount of Rs.100/- in the muafi and thereafter ancestors of petitioner continued to worship the temple till the death of Gopal Krishna Mishra in the year 2001. However since respondent 2 No.1 was also offering Seva Pooja on behalf of late Gopal Krishna Mishra, therefore, taking benefit of this liberty, he managed his appointment as Pujari over this temple vide order dated 10-05-1995.
3. Against the said order, petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, Bhind in that appeal since the record was not sent, therefore, Collector, Bhind passed an strict order which was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner after setting aside the order of Collector, Bhind, directed the SDO, Bhind to make a periodical enquiry and take steps accordingly in relation to Sewa Pooja of temple. Therefore, petitioner approach this Court by preferring Writ Petition No.3076 of 2011 wherein the order of Additional Commissioner was set aside and matter was remanded back to the Collector, Bhind to conduct enquiry and passed an appropriate order.
4. Thereafter, Collector, Bhind started proceedings in the matter and asked respondent No.1 to produce the document in support his claim. Since respondent No.1 failed to do so, therefore, Collector, Bhind directed SDO, Bhind for initiation of fresh proceedings in relation to appointment of Pujari. Respondent No.1 challenged this order again before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed with the direction to the Collector, District Bhind to conduct an enquiry and thereafter proceed in the matter. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that this is second round of litigation. It is further submitted that 3 earlier in the case in hand, an enquiry dated 11.09.2009 was already made in the matter and a fresh enquiry as ordered by the Additional Commissioner, can only be made in case any new facts come to fore but when respondent No.1 failed to produce any document in support of his claim, then directing a fresh enquiry would be a futile exercise and it would not serve any purpose. It is further submitted that since respondent No.1 did not submit any document, therefore, under compulsion, the matter was referred to the SDO, Bhind by Collector, District Bhind for initiation of fresh proceeding in relation to appointment of Pujari which does not suffer any vice. Any how, respondent No.1 is trying to protract the proceedings as he is enjoying the order of appointment of Pujari. The review petition preferred by the petitioner has also wrongly been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. It is further submitted that the Additional Commissioner misconstrued the order of this Court. Thus, prayed for setting aside the order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the submissions and submits that the direction issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation has not been followed by the Collector, District Bhind, therefore, the matter was rightly remanded back to the Collector, District Bhind and initiation of enquiry will not affect the interest of any of the parties adversely. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also opposed the submissions and supported the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner.
48. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
9. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to order dated 7.2.2022 passed in review petition preferred by petitioner against order dated 28.09.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena. Review Petition was dismissed and order dated 28.09.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner is affirmed by which matter was remanded back to the Collector for inquiry.
10. Petitioner, at this stage, appears to be correct when he says that if inquiry is to be conducted then it should be on some new facts/grounds and not a routine inquiry which was earlier got conducted by Collector vide inquiry report dated 11.09.2009 by SDO Bhind. The said inquiry report was taken into account by Collector in his order dated 20.12.2010 and directed for fresh appointment of Pujari at Vankhandeshwar Mahadev Mandir, Bhind. Therefore, it is imperative that inquiry should be more substantial then an eyewash.
11. Here mechanical remand of the case does not yield any results because record apparently is not available. Therefore, it may prejudice cause of one party and may be advantageous to other.
12. Therefore, in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that appropriate remedy would be to conduct inquiry if any substantial ground beyond the earlier inquiry report exist, otherwise Collector may proceed for fresh appointment in accordance with law in which all parties shall have right to participate. If inquiry is to be held then it 5 be conducted at an expeditious note preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of the order so that correct facts may come to the fore.
13. With the above, the petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE VAN/Anil* ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2024.09.27 11:08:18 +05'30'