Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 65 (MP)

Hukiya Bai v. State of M. P.

2007-01-17

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2007
ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order Annexure P-1 dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Collector, Shivpuri whereby the petitioner who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Amhara Janpad Panchayat Bhadarwas was suspended in exercise of powers under section 39 (1) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 39 (1) of the said Adhiniyam a Sarpanch can be suspended only after charge is framed against him in the criminal proceedings. In the present case charge is not framed against the petitioner merely a FIR Annexure P-3 is lodged against the present petitioner. 3. Counsel for the interveners submits that the FIR is lodged by the Executive Officer and there are serious allegations against the present petitioner. He, therefore, relied upon the judgment of apex Court in case of State of Orissa and others v. Md. Illiyas [ AIR 2006 SC 258 ] in which the apex Court has held that when the serious charges are levied against a Sarpanch then this Court cannot interfere in the said proceedings. 4. After perusing the said judgment I find that the said judgment is interpretation of section 115 of Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1965. The said section is quoted by the apex Court in para 7 of his judgment. From the perusal of the said section it appears that the said section is quite different from section 39 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Section 39 (1) specifically lays down that a Sarpanch can be suspended on framing of a charge in a criminal case. Admittedly no charge has been framed against the present petitioner. Hence, impugned order cannot be sustained as there is no provision under the Act for suspending a Sarpanch only on the ground that FIR is lodged against him. 5. In such circumstances Annexure P-1 and P-2 cannot be legally sustained and hereby quashed. However, authorities are free to suspend the petitioner if any charge is framed against him in a criminal case. 6. Petition stands allowed.