Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kamlesh Devi Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2018
1 WP-2429-2013
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-2429-2013
(SMT. KAMLESH DEVI AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-07-2018
Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.5. Heard.
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a challenge has been made to the order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whereby the inclusion of the name of the present petitioner in the BPL List has been found to be erroneous on the ground that the certificate was issued in the case No. 140/B-121/08/09 which was not found to be registered on the same number in the office of Tehsildar-Khargapur. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order an appeal was also filed by the present petitioner which remained unsuccessful.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year, 2011 by a communication dated 18.02.2011 Tehsildar had communicated the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchat - Baldevgarh, District Teekamgarh whereby the case number of the petitioner in which his name was included in the BPL List was corrected. The correct number of the case number is Revenue Case No. 240/3/121/2008-09. It is further submitted that the petitioner is living separately from her father-in-law and therefore, her status can not be adjusted by the authorities on the basis of the status of her father-in-law.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said letter was never produced either before the Sub-Divisional Officer or before the appellate authority. It is also submitted that the remedy of revision is also available to petitioner.
On being confronted with the fact that whether the communication (Annexure P-5) was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the said communication was never produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer and before the Appellate Authority.
Since the communication on which the petitioner is relying has not produced before the authorities who have passed the impugned order, the 2 WP-2429-2013 impugned order can not be held to be erroneous.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted liberty to file an application for review of the order before the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of communication dated 18.11.2011.
Learned counsel for respondent no.5 disputed the aforesaid communication which has been relied by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of the communication dated 18.11.2011.
It is needless to state that if such an application is filed within a period of two weeks form today, the said application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law after hearing all the concerned.
It is further further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an interim order was passed on 20.02.2013 directing to maintain status quo and by virtue of the of the said order of status quo he is continuing on the post of Anganwari Karyakarta. Considering the aforesaid, for a period of three weeks the interim order passed by this Court on 22.02.2013 will continue. The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the authority for interim relief.
With the aforesaid observation the present petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Amitabh Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2018.07.16 02:25:48 -07'00'