Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt.Katori Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2014

                               1                       WP.5325/2014

27.10.2014
      Shri Udit Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri B.Raj Pandey, G.A. for the respondents / State.

Heard.

This petition is directed against the order dated 01.07.2014 whereby the Commissioner, Chambal Division has allowed the application of respondent No.4 for impleadment.

The State authorities proceeded against the petitioner under Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Awam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. By order dated 05.09.2012, the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. Shri Udit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that learned Collector did not grant any interim order and did not stay the order dated 05.09.2014. Against the said order of Collector whereby interim relief was not granted, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner Chambal division. For the first time, the respondent No.4 preferred an application seeking impleadment. It was opposed by the petitioner but was erroneously allowed by the court below. Shri Saxena challenged it on the ground that at revisional stage, such impleadment is impermissible. Litigation arising out of order passed under Section 40 of the Act dated 05.09.2014 is between the petitioner and State Government. Respondent No.4 has no locus to get himself impleaded.

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that allegation against the petitioner in Section 40 proceedings was that a toilet was constructed. The construction was so poor / bad that the said toilet was collapsed and son of respondent No.4 died under the wall of said toilet. The respondent No.4 in his application Annexure P/4 stated that this son died because of use of poor construction material and corruption. He wants to bring the facts to the notice of the court and wants to oppose the interim relief and therefore, he be permitted to be impleaded.

In the opinion of this Court, Court below has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error in allowing the application Annexure P/4. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is warranted if order is passed by the court which does not jurisdiction, order suffers from any palpable illegality or impropriety. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Even a wrong order need not to be interfered with as a matter of course or on the drop of a hat (See: Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329).

The impugned order cannot be said to be passed by an authority who does not have jurisdiction nor it suffers from any procedural impropriety or perversity. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if respondent No.4 is impleaded.

Respondent No.4 has a right to oppose the proceedings filed by the petitioner because his son died under the debris of the toilet which was collapsed. I find no legal infirmity which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Sujoy Paul) Judge sarathe