Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Maru Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2016
1
W.P. No.3332/2016
11/05/2016
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent / State.
Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the respondents nos.2 &3 on advance notice.
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07/04/2016, removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti under Section 55(1) & (2) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and debarring her from contesting the elections for a period of 6 years.
Counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3 submits that impugned order has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that against the said order, efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file revision under Section 59 of the Act. Since efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, no case for entertaining this writ petition directly at this stage, is made out.
2In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. If the petitioner files revision petition in terms of Section 59 of the Act, then the same will be considered by the Revisional Authority as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. If the application for interim relief is filed in the said revision petition, the same will also be considered by the Revisional Authority and appropriate orders will be passed without any delay.
C.C as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge sumathi