Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Kailash Kumar Dangi vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 3 August, 1999

Smt. Rani Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 1 May, 2002

19. Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, so also the petitioner and the State submitted that in view of the special facts and circumstances which have emerged from record, it is manifestly clear that the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order on 28-12-2001 itself and in view of the decisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in cases of Bansamani Prasad Veerbhadra Shukla v. State of M.P. (supra); Nirmal Singh Sahu v. State of M.P. (supra); Kailash Kumar Dangi v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra); Primary Co-operative Stores Ltd., Satna v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra), the order of Sub-Divisional Officer deserves to be set aside, as the opportunity of hearing has not been given.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Reshmabai vs Panchayat And Rural Development ... on 15 May, 2019

"That apart, it is also noticed that during the enquiry no witnesses have been examined and no opportunity to cross examine has been given to the petitioner. This Court in the matter of Kailash Kumar Dangi Vs. State of MP & Ors. 1999(2) JLJ 280 has held that the word enquiry in Sec.40(1) of the Act are in the nature of enquiry as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, hence the concerned person is to be informed of the charges and opportunity of hearing is to be given and also the opportunity to adduce the evidence as required to be given.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukesh Singad vs Panchayat And Rural Development ... on 24 June, 2019

"That apart, it is also noticed that during the enquiry no witnesses have been examined and no opportunity to cross examine has been given to the petitioner. This Court in the matter of Kailash Kumar Dangi Vs. State of MP & Ors. 1999(2) JLJ 280 has held that the word enquiry in Sec.40(1) of the Act are in the nature of enquiry as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, hence the concerned person is to be informed of the charges and opportunity of hearing is to be given and also the opportunity to adduce the evidence as required to be given.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Harkunwar Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2019

5. He further placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kailash Kumar Dangi vs. State of M.P. and others 2000 (1) M.P.H.T. 143, Babita Lilhare vs. Surendra Rana and others 2004 (1) M.P.L.J. 27, Kailashchandra Jain vs. State of M.P. and others 2003 (3) M.P.L.J. 260 as well as order passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Chandrakanta Bai vs. State of M.P. 2014 (4) M.P.L.J. 479, Manita Jaiwar vs. State of M.P. and others 2009 (3) M.P.L.J. 370 as well as judgment passed in W.P. No.7799/2019 (s) (Smt. Anita Chouhan vs. Vihit Adhikari Avam Mukhya Katypalan Adhinkari and another dated 23/09/2019.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - V Kasrekar - Full Document

Shri Agnelo Alexinho Lobo, Indian ... vs The Director Of Panchayats, Panaji, ... on 9 January, 2002

In other words, unlike the provisions in Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, which were considered by the learned Single Judge of that Court in the case of Kailesh Kumar (supra), the period of disqualification though statutorily fixed, there is discretion conferred on the 1st Respondent in the matter of the period. That discretion is whether it should be for a month or more or for the maximum period of five years. Once there is a discretion, it is clear that the order must disclose reasons more so as the authority before whom the order is challenged, must be able from the order to find out that the 1st Respondent had taken into consideration relevant factors and not irrelevant factors. That material on record had been considered and which material had been made available to the party. In other words, an objective satisfaction based on material available. At least, therefore, the duty to give reasons is implicit both in sub-sections (4) and (5) and about that there can be no dispute considering the evolution of law on that count. The only question is whether the show cause notice must indicate the period which the respondent may prefer to bar a member holding the office of Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch or as a member and the stage when this notice should be given ? Should the notice be after coming to the conclusion, that the party is guilty or can it be simultaneous with the issuance of the show cause notice ? On a plain reading of sub-sections (4) and (5) and the nature of the hearing, to my mind, it is clear that it has to be simultaneous. It is also further clear that notice should be made known the period for which the notice is sought to be removed, as the nature of the enquiry, and the time frame and consideration of material would depend on those facts. A Court while considering the reasons and the fact of reasonable opportunity in case the Authority proposes a shorter ineligibility may consider the principles of natural justice differently than where the maximum period is to be imposed as principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait jacket. To my mind, therefore, the reasonable opportunity to be given must also include notice to the party to whom the show cause notice is issued that such party is to be disqualified or made ineligible upto the period set out in the show cause notice. That is required to be set out and contained in the show cause notice itself. In the instant case, no such opportunity was given. The Petitioner had filed his reply to the Show Cause Notice, but however, did not complain that because of the failure of the 1st Respondent in not disclosing the term for which the petitioner was to be disqualified, was hampered in his defence. Therefore, even though there was failure on the part of the 1st Respondent to comply with the requirement of giving opportunity in the matter of ineligibility and the period on the facts of the present case, as no prejudice has been occasioned to the Petitioner, we do not propose to interfere insofar as the failure on that count is concerned.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Smt.Seema Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2025

13. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the inquiry was made by the Revenue Authority, no chance was given to him to put his defence and thus, it is violated the principles of natural justice and to that point, he has relied with the judgment of Kailash Kumar Dangi v. State of M.P. and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 143 and Kamal Kishore v. Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 212 in which it has been held that as per the provision of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam- Inquiry to be held in conformity with the principle of natural justice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Seema Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2025

13. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the inquiry was made by the Revenue Authority, no chance was given to him to put his defence and thus, it is violated the principles of natural justice and to that point, he has relied with the judgment of Kailash Kumar Dangi v. State of M.P. and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 143 and Kamal Kishore v. Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 212 in which it has been held that as per the provision of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam- Inquiry to be held in conformity with the principle of natural justice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2018

The present factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the inquiry was conducted by the three members of the Committee behind the back of the petitioner. Such preliminary inquiry may have the sanction of law and the petitioner cannot claim that the said inquiry should be held in his presence but the real inquiry has to be held by the prescribed authority and in the said inquiry where the petitioner has to be given due/adequate/sufficient opportunity. It is submitted by Mr. Bhatti, on a perusal of the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority, it is perceptible that the persons who made complaints against the petitioner were not examined by the prescribed authority and the petitioner could not have cross-examined them but, unfortunately the statements of the said witnesses have been considered by the Collector and been utilised against the petitioner. On a perusal of the record, it is noticed that this fact is borne out on record and the learned counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute the same. Quite apart from that, it is noticeable that the petitioner's application for supply of documents had not been properly construed by the prescribed authority, as the petitioner was supplied only the inquiry report but not the materials/other documents. An interesting feature which cannot be lost sight of is that the appellate authority has called for these documents by order dated 8-4-99 but it does not appear that the petitioner was supplied the said documents.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V Kasrekar - Full Document

Raj Kishore Jha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2025

13. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the inquiry was made by the Revenue Authority, no chance was given to him to put his defence and thus, it is violated the principles of natural justice and to that point, he has relied with the judgment of Kailash Kumar Dangi v. State of M.P. and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 143 and Kamal Kishore v. Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 212 in which it has been held that as per the provision of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam- Inquiry to be held in conformity with the principle of natural justice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sugan Bai Parmar vs Panchayat And Rural Development ... on 13 March, 2019

That apart, it is also noticed that during the enquiry no witnesses have been examined and no opportunity to cross examine has been given to the petitioner. This Court in the matter of Kailash Kumar Dangi Vs. State of MP & Ors. 1999(2) JLJ 280 has held that the word enquiry in Sec.40(1) of the Act are in the nature of enquiry as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, hence the concerned person is to be informed of the charges and opportunity of hearing is to be given and also the opportunity to adduce the evidence as required to be given.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next