Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sofal Deep Bhalavi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.13623/2017
(Sofal Deep Bhalavi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated :25.10.2018
Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sheetal Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-2), whereby the appointment order of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal filed by respondent No.7 was allowed.
An advertisement inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Kendra Dorli, Chhatarpur was issued by respondent No.4, Project Officer. A comparative chart was prepared. In the final list, petitioner's name appeared at Sl.No.1 with 60.44 marks and respondent No.7 appeared at second place with 59 marks. An objection was filed by respondent No.7 regarding the 10 marks given to petitioner on the basis of her BPL card, alleging that the said card was illegally obtained. On an enquiry conducted by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.13623/2017 (Sofal Deep Bhalavi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) the Patwari, the objection raised by respondent No.7 was found correct. As despite such report, the Tehsildar rejected the objection and considered the BPL card valid, on humanitarian ground, the respondent No.7 filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer found that the name of petitioner's father was included in the BPL list in the year 2004 because he has incurred a disability of 75 percent, has four daughters and no other income other than pension. It was held that the BPL card was issued not on the basis of criteria of income but to grant him benefits of government schemes. The Sub-Divisional Officer also recorded a finding that on enquiry by the Revenue Inspector, it was found that the criteria for recording the name in the BPL list is the minimum standard of financial status for giving BPL facilities. As per the criteria fixed for issuance of BPL card, only a person getting 14 marks or less is entitled to be included in the BPL list. However, the petitioner's father got 18 marks, hence he was not entitled for the BPL card and passed an order to cancel the BPL card No.397 of petitioner's father and allowed the appeal of respondent No.7.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.13623/2017 (Sofal Deep Bhalavi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was rejected as not maintainable on the ground that there is no provision for appeal under the M.P. Land Revenue Code to challenge the cancellation of BPL card. Hence this petition.
The singular contention of learned for the petitioner is that the order of Commissioner is illegal as Section 44(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code provides for filing of appeal against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of her father's BPL card by the Sub-Divisional Officer and also rejection of her appeal by the Commissioner.
Section 44(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code provides as under :-
"44(2) Save as otherwise provided a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal under this Code or the rules made thereunder :-
(i) by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector to the Commissioner;
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.13623/2017 (Sofal Deep Bhalavi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.)
(ii) by the Settlement Officer to the Settlement Commissioner;
(iii) by the Commissioner to the Board -
(a) if the original order has in the first appeal been varied or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost ; or
(b) on any of the following grounds and no other, namely :-
(i) that the order is contrary to law or usage having the force of law; or
(ii) that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having force of law; or
(iii) that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Code, which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits.
A perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that second appeal is provided against an order passed in first appeal passed against the original order under the M.P. Land Revenue Code. However, the original order of grant of BPL card in favour of petitioner's father cannot be said to be passed under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code.
A second appeal against the order of cancellation/ rejection of BPL card is provided to the Collector under HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.13623/2017 (Sofal Deep Bhalavi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) Section 9.1 of M.P. Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010, which provides as under :-
lkj.kh 9- [kk|] ukxfjd vkiwfrZ ,oa miHkksDrk laj{k.k foHkkx dz- lsok, inkfHkfgr lsok iznku izFke vihy izFke vihy f}rh;
vf/kdkjh dk djuas dh vf/kdkjh ds vihy
inuke fuf'pr dk inuke fujkdj.k izkf/kdkjh dk
le;&lhek dh fuf'pr inuke
dh xbZ
le;&lhek
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(i) ftyk eq[;ky; ds 30 dk;Z vuqfoHkkxh; 30 dk;Z dysDVj
uxjh; {ks= dks fnol vf/kdkjh fnol
NksM+dj 'ks"k jktLo
uxjh; ,oa xzkeh.k
{ks= esa rglhynkj
As there is no provision of filing of appeal against the order of cancellation/rejection of BPL card under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, hence, the Commissioner has not committed any error in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.
This writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(Smt. Nandita Dubey) Judge gn Digitally signed by GEETHA NAIR Date: 2018.10.31 15:00:18 +05'30'