Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kirodi Lal Meena vs Dandraua Sarkar Public Trust on 16 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
1 Writ Appeal No.163/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
WRIT APPEAL No. 163/2026
KIRODI LAL MEENA
Versus
DANDRAUA SARKAR PUBLIC TRUST AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh - Senior Advocate/Advocate General with Shri Vivek Khedkar -
Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General and Shri S.S.Kushwah - Government
Advocate for the appellant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 16th day of January 2026) Per: Justice Anand Pathak Present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 2 (1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dt.10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in MCC No.2445/2025, whereby contempt proceedings have been drawn against the appellant, who happened to be the Collector Bhind at the relevant point of time.
2. At the out set, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that subject matter was in fact an application vide MCC No.2445/2025 for restoration of one Misc. Petition (M.P.No.857/2021), in which learned Single Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/16/2026 6:08:06 PM 2 Writ Appeal No.163/2026 Judge has drawn proceeding of contempt against the Collector Bhind - K.L.Meena (present appellant) exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India available to the Court. Therefore, Writ Appeal is maintainable.
3. Learned senior counsel relied upon the order dt.31.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1053/2020 (Shailendra Singh Kushwah Vs. State of M.P.) in support of his submissions. He also relied upon the order dt.16.11.2021 passed in W.A.No.990/2021 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jaipal Singh), whereby Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to larger Bench to answer the reference in respect of maintainability of appeal arising from an order other than the order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While referring the matter, interim relief was also granted. Reference before larger Bench is pending consideration.
4. Learned Senior counsel also referred the Division Bench order dt.08.02.2022 passed in W.A.No.97/2022 (Smt. Harsha Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others). He also referred the order dt.20.02.2025 passed by the Division Bench of Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.A.No.332/2025 (The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Avijit Sharma and others), whereby interim order has been passed against the observations made by learned Single Judge vide order dt.17.01.2025 in W.P.No.28981/2024 (Avijit Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/16/2026 6:08:06 PM 3 Writ Appeal No.163/2026 others). Therefore, according to senior counsel, writ appeal is maintainable.
5. Considering the submissions, fact situation and different orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court from time to time, this Court finds the case prima facie maintainable because learned Single Judge purportedly exercised the power under Article 226 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 while hearing the restoration application preferred by the State and in that case, contempt proceedings are directed to be initiated.
6. Precisely stated, facts of the case are as under :-
Following list of dates and events, as provided by the appellant, is important for consideration of facts of this case :-
DATE EVENTS
24.07.2007 Office of the Tahsildar District Bhind in case No.01/2006-
07/A61 granted lease to the respondent for the purpose of plantation and in total 46 khasra numbers / survey numbers a total rakba of 55.43 hectares of land was given for specific purpose of plantation.
Against the aforesaid order of allotment of land, an appeal was preferred by Mr. Sarnam S/o Hardayal before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Mehgaon, which was registered as case No.41/2006-07.
07/09/07 SDO Mehgaon partly allowed the appeal.
A complaint was made to the office of Collector, Bhind, which was registered as case No.09/2010-11/suo motu. 25.04.2011 Vide order the Collector, Bhind cancelled the order dt.24.07.2007 passed by Tahsildar, Mehgaon, District Bhind.
Against the order dt.25.04.2011, an appeal was preferred by the respondent Trust before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, which was registered as Case No.148/2010- 11/suo motu, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/16/2026 6:08:06 PM 4 Writ Appeal No.163/2026 15.06.2011 Commissioner, Chambal Division dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the Collector Bhind. Against the aforesaid order dt.15.06.2011, respondent Trust filed revision before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Case No.1107-2/2011.
15.01.2015 Board of Revenue vide order reversed the orders passed by the Collector Bhind and Commissioner, Chambal Division and maintained the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mehgaon.
State of M.P. challenged the aforesaid order dt.15.01.2015 by filing M.P.No.857/2021 before this Court.
22.11.2023 In MP No.857/2021 learned Single Judge directed the State Government to explain what action has been taken against the officer in error, who granted lease in favour of the respondent.
13.02.2024 Notices were issued in the aforesaid M.P. No.857/2021. 29.05.2024 Since process fee was not paid, therefore, again case was listed under Common Conditional Orders and conditional order was passed for payment of process fee.
Due to non compliance of Common Conditional Order dt.29.05.2024, M.P. No.857/2021 was dismissed.
State of M.P. filed MCC No.2445/2025 for restoration of M.P.No.857/2021.
07/11/25 Learned Single Judge directed the District Magistrate, Bhind to remain personally present on 10.11.2025 to explain as to what transpired after the notices were given to SDM and Tahsildar as well as to explain as to why no process fee was paid in compliance of court order.
10/11/25 Collector Bhind remained present before the Court. The court issued directions to the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena to join the Court proceedings through Video Conferencing on 11.11.2025 and explain as to why he has not taken a final decision on the recommendation written by District Magistrate in spite of the fact that approximately 07 months have expired. SDO, Mehgaon, District Bhind was also directed to join the court proceedings through video conferencing to explain as to why he took 09 months to give a prima facie opinion about the entry which was made in the computer.
11/11/25 In- charge Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/16/2026 6:08:06 PM 5 Writ Appeal No.163/2026 SDO Mehgaon, District Bhind joined the court proceedings through video conferencing. Case was adjourned for 17.11.2025 and Collector Bhind was directed to remain present through video conferencing to explain as to why he made serious allegations against Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena specifically when the matter was sent back by the Office of Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena twice.
17.11.2025 Learned Single Judge issued directions to the Chief Secretary and Commissioner, Chambal Division to explain as to whether they are happy with their subordinate officers who have no hesitation in scandalizing the office of seniors. It is made clear that in case if Chief Secretary, State of M.P. and Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena are happy with the conduct of Shri Meena, then the Court will not draw any proceeding for contempt of Court.
10/12/25 When the case was taken up, Govt.Advocate submitted that Chief Secretary has conducted an enquiry and has found that the conduct of the Collector, Bhind was not in conformity with the standards required in official submissions before the High Court and GAD has been directed to issue an administrative warning to the officer. Thereafter, the Court vide impugned order show caused the appellant for making false statement.
7. It is the submission of Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant through video conferencing that learned Single Judge was hearing the matter for restoration of M.P.No.857/2021 and that had to be decided on the basis of merits involved into it. However, learned Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction and held Collector District Bhind - K.L.Meena (present appellant) as guilty of contempt and initiated proceeding against him.
8. Earlier, Chief Secretary was directed to take note of the situation and given the task of conducting enquiry, thereafter Chief Secretary conducted Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/16/2026 6:08:06 PM 6 Writ Appeal No.163/2026 enquiry and found conduct of appellant liable for Administrative Warning, thus complied the earlier orders passed by the said Court. Orders of Court were duly complied with by different authorities including Chief Secretary from time to time. However, learned Single Judge has drawn proceeding of contempt against the Collector Bhind - K.L.Meena (present appellant) ignoring the fact situation that he already suffered at the hands of Chief Secretary. Even if any further enquiry or further direction is required to be given, that can be done by learned Single Judge, but instead of that, contempt proceeding is drawn which is harsh over the appellant.
9. Notice was issued in M.P.No.857/2001 vide order dt.13.02.2024 when authorities disclosed that District Magistrate Bhind shall enquire the matter and pass an appropriate order within three months in respect of negligence done by officer-in-error. However, due to change of guards, some communication gap ensued, which resulted into situation where contempt was initiated. Appellant extends unconditional apology and undertakes to be cautious in future and would abide by all the directions as issued by the Court/Single Judge from time to time. Since no notice was issued to the other side and prior to it, M.P.No.857/2021 got dismissed, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the other side if matter is heard finally on admission stage. Therefore, learned senior counsel prayed for hearing the matter accordingly.
10. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at length and perused the documents/record appended thereto.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/16/2026 6:08:06 PM 7 Writ Appeal No.163/2026
11. This is the case having chequered history. Litigation lacked promptitude by officers of State Government despite valuable Govt. land is involved, therefore, compelled by circumstances, learned Single Judge passed the impugned order dt.10.12.2025. However, a bit course of correction appears to be prime requisite because in penultimate paragraph of impugned order, learned Single Judge found Collector Bhind - K.L.Meena guilty of not maintaining the standard as required in official submissions to the High Court. Post appearance for contempt proceedings would affect the prospects of appellant because said observation has the trappings of View Formation.
12. Therefore, initiation of contempt proceeding coupled with formation of view (even prima facie), may affect the proceeding of contempt. Besides that, Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant raised the issue regarding scope of MCC, that is also required to be addressed if proceedings were to continue. Sufficiency of cause in application for restoration is to be seen. Another question cropped up is regarding sufficiency/insufficiency of action taken by Chief Secretary qua appellant. Since learned Single Judge already posed certain questions before the Govt. Advocate including status of such administrative warning, therefore, those questions deserve to be addressed first.
13. Another aspect deserves consideration is the unconditional apology tried to be tendered by the appellant. If appellant tenders unconditional apology regarding alleged communication gap/inadvertence, then its impact Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/16/2026 6:08:06 PM 8 Writ Appeal No.163/2026 thereon is to be seen. Circumstances under which this situation arose deserve dissection so that it may not occur in future. All these issues may be addressed for consideration before learned Single Judge, if advised so or if addressed so.
14. Therefore, in cumulative analysis while maintaining order dt.10.12.2025, only last paragraph, so far as initiation of contempt proceeding against the appellant is concerned, stands deleted. Appellant is relegated back in the proceeding to make submissions as per law showing his innocence, if any, and if required, to show the exact nature of Administrative Warning. Appellant to appear before the learned Single Judge on 19.01.2026 and take directions for further course of appearance.
15. With the aforesaid deletion in the impugned order dt.10.12.2025 in MCC No.2445/2025, present Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 1/16/2026
6:08:06 PM