Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1120 (MP)

Bhagwan Singh Dhakad v. State of M. P.

2000-10-12

S.S.JHA

body2000
Petitioner applied for the appointment on the post of Panchayatkarmi of Gram Panchayat Piproniya, Tahsil Kailaras, District Morena. The Gram Panchayat in its meeting passed a resolution on 4.1.1996 and selected die petitioner for the post of Panchayatkarmi. After the petitioner was appointed, the resolution was challenged in appeal by respondent No. 6-Prahlad before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer quashed the resolution holding therein that the meeting was not fixed for selection of Panchayatkarmi and meeting was not held properly. The selected person is related to Sarpanch. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged in another appeal before the Collector, Morena, who has confirmed the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, some revision was preferred before the Commissioner, which was dismissed as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resolution of Panchayat is not amenable to appeal or revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, the order passed by Sub- Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel then invited explanation to second proviso of Section 69 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam') and submitted that for the purpose of sub-section the expression "relative" shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, Thus, brother's son is not included in the definition of "relative". Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the ground for quashing his appointment is also invalid. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Rawat v. State of M.P. and others. reported in 2000 (1) JLJ 280 = 2000 (2) MPLJ 176, and submitted that no appeal or revision is tenable against the proceedings of Gram Panchayat. The resolution passed by Gram Panchayat is neither appealable nor revisable. The appeal challenging the resolution is not competent under the scheme of the Adhiniyam. Counsel for the State submitted that the close relation has been appointed but conceded that relation is defined under Section 69 of the Adhiniyam and under Section 69 brother's son is not included in the definition of relation. Shri Brijesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, submitted that the resolution itself is improper. No challenge to resolution has been made or complaint has been made to appropriate authority. Shri Brijesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, submitted that the resolution itself is improper. No challenge to resolution has been made or complaint has been made to appropriate authority. Under Section 85 of the Adhiniyam, the State Government or the prescribed authority is empowered to suspend the execution of any resolution passed, for reasons to be stated in writing and the order of suspension is to be confirmed by the State Government after it is forwarded to the State Government within ten days of the suspension. The authority has not invoked the procedure laid down in Section 85 of the Adhiniyam. As such, the appellate authority/Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to quash the resolution. The orders, Annexures P-2 and P-l are, quashed being without jurisdiction. The petition succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.