Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omkar Mahule vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-4946-2018
(OMKAR MAHULE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-05-2018
Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aseem Dixit, GA for respondents No.1 to 4/state.
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for respondent No.5. With the consent, finally heard.
sh During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 cannot go scot free. The inquiry was not e ad completed within the statutory time prescribed under section 41(c) of M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. He placed Pr reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in a 2013(11) MPWN-28 ( Santosh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P.) hy and a recent judgment of this court passed in W.P.No.18135/17 ad (Rajesh Barkade Vs. State of M.P. and others) and contended that even if the said inquiry cannot countenanced because it could not be M completed within statutory time framed, liberty may be reserved to the of official respondents to proceed against respondent No.5 in accordance with law.
rt Shri Dixit, GA submits that the point is squarely covered by the order ou of division bench in Santosh Raghuvanshi (supra). C Shri Paritosh Trivedi opposed the said contention and submits that in view of aforesaid judgment, petition is devoid of merits. h ig I have heard the parties at length. H In the considered opinion of this court, the parties have fairly submitted that the inquiry which was called in question before the Commissioner cannot get stamp of approval because admittedly inquiry could not be completed within statutory time limit framed under the statute. However, I find substance, to the limited extent, in the argument of Shri Agarwal because pertinently in the case of Santosh Raghuvanshi (supra), this court clarified that parties are at liberty to take action against the Sarpanch, if it is required, in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, I deem it proper to give similar liberty to the official respondents in this case. With aforesaid liberty, petition is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE MKL Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 2018.05.11 17:31:28 +05'30' sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H