Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jagmohan Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2018

                             1                 W.P.No.10054/2018


       Jagmohan Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
09.05.2018
      Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Ashish Saraswat, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.

Heard on admission.

The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner working as Panchayat Secretary, being crestfallen by the order dated 09-04-2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri purportedly under Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') and amount of Rs.1,65,075/- has been directed to be deposited.

As per submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, impugned order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer without affording adequate opportunity of hearing in the matter as contemplated under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Another ground raised by the petitioner is based upon an affidavit which purportedly executed by Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat (Garichchha) in which she has categorically stated that the amount is lying with her and petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that earlier Sarpanch Smt. Anita Jatav preferred a writ petition before this Court against issuance of show cause notice in which this Court vide order dated 06-03-2017 (in writ petition No.1530/2017) directed the respondents to maintain status quo and not to pass final order. Still the order has been passed. Petitioner relied upon the order dated 11-08-2017 passed in writ petition No.5203/2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal and prayed for dismissal of petition.

Heard.

From perusal of impugned order as well as show cause notice dated 18-12-2017 (Annexure P/3), it appears that petitioner was show caused for his conduct and was directed to file reply on dated 27-01-2018, the date fixed for hearing. On 27- 01-2018, petitioner appeared before the authority and submitted his reply vide Annexure P/4. Although further proceedings have not been annexed but from issuance of show cause notice itself it can be gathered that petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and thereafter impugned order has been passed. Therefore, from perusal of show cause notice and reply filed by petitioner, it is apparent that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner therefore, the plea of violation of principle of natural justice is not sustainable in the present case.

So far as the order dated 06-03-2017 passed in writ petition No.1530/2017 is concerned, that order was passed in writ petition filed at the instance of Sarpanch -Smt. Anita Jatav and not at the instance of petitioner. Therefore, interim order cannot be relied by the petitioner to get any relief in the present case.

Once the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and he filed reply, therefore, it is apparent that contention of petitioner has been taken into account. So far as reliance placed by the petitioner over the order dated 11-08-2017 in writ petition No.5203/2017 is concerned, said case move in different factual realm wherein the order has been passed by the Collector who is not appropriate authority under the scheme. Besides that, in the show cause notice (of that case) itself, petitioners of that petition were directed to deposit the amount, therefore, distinction in factual bearing cannot allow the petitioner to draw parity.

Vide Gazette notification dated 24-11-2017 published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra, appeal is provided to the Divisional 3 W.P.No.10054/2018 Commissioner, against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat under any provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1993 or rules or policy made thereunder. Therefore, the remedy of appeal is still available to the petitioner to agitate the grievances.

Resultantly, the petition referred by the petitioner fails. Admission declined and petition is dismissed in limine. Petitioner may prefer appeal as per law.

Dismissed.

                                                             (Anand Pathak)
Anil*                                                           Judge




        Digitally signed by ANIL
        KUMAR CHAURASIYA
        Date: 2018.05.16 13:21:59
        +05'30'