Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 354 (MP)

Rajkumar v. State of M. P.

2003-03-03

BHAWANI SINGH, S.L.JAIN

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 22-3-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5647/2001, the appellant has filed this L. P. A. under Clause 10 of Letters Patent. ( 2. ) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that a meeting of Gram Sabha, Khawasa was called on 26-3-2001 but the same was adjourned to 31-3-2001 for want of quorum. On 31-3-2001 out of 1800 members only 332 members were present. The appellant who was present in the meeting as a member of Gram Sabha, raised an objection that the business cannot be transacted for want of quorum but the same was ruled out. In this meeting certain Standing Committees of Gram Sabha were con stituted and a cashier was also appointed. Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the Appellate Committee, Janpad Panchayat, Kurai. Disposing of the appeal under Rules 5 and 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Sabha Appeal Rules, 2001, the Appellate Committee vide its order dated 6-11-2001 held that the proceedings of meeting of Gram Sabha, Khawasa, dated 31-3-2001 were bad due to lack of requisite quorum. The Committee, therefore, directed reconvening the meeting of Gram Sabha for constitution of Standing Committees and for appointment of cashier. ( 3. ) ON a revision, being Revision No. 546/89/2000-2001, by Sar-panch, Gram Panchayat, Khawasa, the Collector, Seoni vide order dated 13-8-2001 held that Section 6 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "adhiniyam") applies only to Gram Sabhas which are out of the scheduled area. For Gram Sabhas within the scheduled area no quorum in adjourned meeting was necessary as per Rule 9 (2) of Scheduled Area Gram Sabha (Constitution, Procedure of Meeting and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules of 1998") and Section 6 (2) of the Adhiniyam which is applicable to General Gram Sabhas, has been misapplied in case of Gram Sabha, Khawasa. ( 4. ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order of the Collector, dated 13-8-2001, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5647/2001 before this Court alleging therein that the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision under the M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, therefore, the order of the Collector is without jurisdiction. ( 5. ( 4. ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order of the Collector, dated 13-8-2001, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5647/2001 before this Court alleging therein that the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision under the M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, therefore, the order of the Collector is without jurisdiction. ( 5. ) LEARNED Single Judge, without going into the question as to whether the order passed by the Appellate Committee, was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Collector, held that Appellate Committee has misapplied Section 6 (2) of the Adhiniyam in the case of the Gram Sabha constituted under scheduled area, therefore, since the order of the Appellate Committee itself is without jurisdiction, the discretionary extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be exercised. The learned Single Judge also held that no mis-carriage of justice has occasioned to the appellant, therefore, no case is made out for interference in the matter under the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. ( 6. ) BEING aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge the appellant has filed this letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent. ( 7. ) WE have heard Shri S. D. Khan, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, and gone through the record. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant contended that when the revision against the order of Appellate Committee was not maintainable before the Collector, learned Single Judge should have set aside the order passed by the Collector and should have restored the order of the Appellate Committee. ( 9. ) WE are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the order of the Appellate Committee itself was bad in law and there was no illegality in the resolution of Panchayat. Even if the revision was not maintainable, by setting aside the order passed in revision, the order of Appellate Committee which itself was contrary to law, could not have been restored. Though the order of the Appellate Committee was not challenged in the writ petition, restoring the same would have resulted in manifest injustice. The High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction should not go into the technicalities and should do the substantial justice. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction should not go into the technicalities and should do the substantial justice. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. A special provision for Panchayats in the scheduled area has been made in Chapter 14-A of the Adhiniyam. This chapter overrides the provisions given in Chapter 2. Therefore, the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Adhiniyam were misapplied by the appellate committee. For Gram Sabhas within the scheduled area 1998 Rules have been framed. Rule 9 of these Rules is reproduced below :- " 9. Quorum.-- (1) The quorum for any meeting of Gram Sabha shall be one-third of total number of members of Gram Sabha out of which one-third shall be the women members. (2) If at the time appointed for the meeting the quorum is not present, the Chairperson of the meeting shall adjourn the meeting to such future date and time as he may fix and a fresh notice shall be given in the manner prescribed and no quorum shall be necessary for such adjourned meeting : Provided that no new subject shall be considered in such meeting. " A bare perusal of Section 6 (2) of the Adhiniyam and Rule 9 of the 1998 Rules reveals that not less than one-fifth of the total number of members of the Gram Sabha shall form quorum for a meeting of Gram Sabha of the general area. Similarly for a Gram Sabha of the scheduled area quorum for meeting of Gram Sabha shall be one-third of the total number of the members of Gram Sabha but if at the time appointed for the meeting the quorum is not present, meeting shall be adjourned for a future date and no quorum shall be necessary for such adjourned meeting. ( 10. ) SINCE from the order of the Collector it is clear that Gram Sabha Khawasa is in the scheduled area, therefore, appellate committee was not justified in setting aside the resolution of the Gram Sabha on the ground of want of quorum because it was an adjourned meeting for which no quorum was necessary. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted though feebly that Gram Sabha, Khawasa, was not in the scheduled area. This fact was not disputed before the Collector. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted though feebly that Gram Sabha, Khawasa, was not in the scheduled area. This fact was not disputed before the Collector. In the writ petition also appellant has not pleaded that Gram Sabha, Khawasa was not in the scheduled area. Similarly, in the present appeal also no ground has been taken that the finding of the learned Single Judge that Gram Sabha, Khawasa was in the scheduled area is not factually correct. Had the learned Counsel for the appellant been serious about this contention, he could have shown the relevant notifications by which Gram Sabhas of scheduled area were notified to show that Gram Sabha, Khawasa was not included in that notification, but he did not venture to do so. Therefore, this contention raised before us for the first time cannot be accepted. Annexure P-4 is the copy of objections which were raised at the time of meeting. In this document also no objection was raised to the effect that the quorum is not complete. The only objection was that there is no proper arrangement for sitting of the members particularly women folk. Hence, this contention also is sans substance. ( 12. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant, lastly contended that an objection was raised in writ petition that against the order of the Appellate Committee the revision to the Collector does not lie but the learned Single Judge has left this matter undecided. When the Appellate Committee wrongly applied Section 6 (2) of the Adhiniyam, though in fact, 1998 Rules where applicable, the order of the Appellate Committee was per se wrong and it could not have been revived even if the order in revision was without jurisdiction. In the facts of this case, the question as to whether against the order of the Appellate Committee the revision lies before the Collector remains only academic. It is a settled practice that this Court does not decide the matter which are only of academic interest and the decision thereon is not necessary for the disposal of the case. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in not deciding this question. We likewise also decline to answer this question. We think it is inexpedient for us to delve into the problem and express opinion thereon, the decision on which is not necessary for the disposal of appeal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in not deciding this question. We likewise also decline to answer this question. We think it is inexpedient for us to delve into the problem and express opinion thereon, the decision on which is not necessary for the disposal of appeal. We leave this point to be decided in future in some proper lis between the parties properly ranged on either side and a crossing of the sword. ( 13. ) NO other point was raised before us. ( 14. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, no interference in the order impugned is called for. The appeals liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine.