Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2015
1
W. P. No.5304/2010
W. P. No.5304/2010
06.05.2015
Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. A. Bernard, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.
Order dated 6.4.2010 passed by respondent No.3 whereby taking cognizance of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat Maregaon, Block Chichli, District Narsinghpur, proposing removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Sachiv Sarpanch has been directed to hold fresh selection for appointment of Panchayat Karmi. The order further ............. that any order passed by the sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Gadarwara would be binding on the Panchayat.
The petitioner, effected Panchayat Karmi, question the impugned order on the ground that the Collector in the given facts have no jurisdiction to pass such order.
It is urged that the alleged resolution did not attain finality as the same has to be dwelt in the manner provided under Chapter X of M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam,1993. It is urged that the 2 W. P. No.5304/2010 impunged order has been passed in absorption of the powers of Sub-Divisional Officer, who is a prescribed authority under Section 85 of 1993 Adhiniyam.
On these grounds it is urged that the impugned order having been passed in co....... exercise of power is void in the eyes of law.
Respondents No.1 to 3 on their turn support the order. It is also urged that after passing of impugned order and before the stay order dated 7.5.2010 one Tirath Prasad Lodhi was selected as Panchayat Karmi. This contention is refuted by the petitioner who states that the appointment of Tirath Prasad Lodhi was challenged and was set aside in appeal. Be that as it may.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Loretta