Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1134 (MP)

Raj Kumar Rai v. State of M. P.

2008-09-10

A.M.NAIK

body2008
ORDER 1. Shri R.K. Jain, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vinod Mehta, Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No. 5/Caveator. 2. Matter is being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 16.8.2007 issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kuluwa Khas District Tikamgarh. This order of appointment was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Collector in the revision bearing Case No. 22/B, 121/08-98. It has been allowed vide order dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P-ll) which is impugned herein. 4. Order Annexure P-2 dated 16.8.2007 is obviously appealable under the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 stated that the Collector has passed the impugned order pursuant to this Court's order dated 1.5.2008 passed in WP No. 3430/08 which is on record as Annexure P-7. 5. On perusal it is observed that the order dated 1.5.2008 in WP No. 3430/08 was passed with the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties on the ground that learned Additional Collector, Tikamgarh dismissed the revision pending before him after assigning certain reasons. 6. In WP No. 3430/08 the parties had agreed that the reasons assigned in the orders dated 7.12.2007 and in the final order were not in harmony with each other and were reconsiderable. 7. In view of the joint consensus, order dated 1.5.2008 in WP No. 3430/08 was passed with a direction to the Additional Collector, Tikamgarh to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. By no stretch of imagination order dated 1.5.2008 may be construed to mean that Additional Collector would decide the matter afresh without taking into consideration the legal provisions. Order dated 16.8.2007 (P-2) being appealable, a revision under the rules did not lie at all. This being so, the impugned order passed by the Collector vide Annexure P-11 is, thus, without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. 8. At this stage, Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5/Caveator prays for liberty to prefer appeal against Annexure P-2 in accordance with rules. 9. Prayer is accepted. 10. This being so, the impugned order passed by the Collector vide Annexure P-11 is, thus, without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. 8. At this stage, Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5/Caveator prays for liberty to prefer appeal against Annexure P-2 in accordance with rules. 9. Prayer is accepted. 10. It is made clear that in case, if appeal is preferred in due manner within 15 days, along with certified copy of this order, Appellate Authority would decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law without insisting upon the question of limitation. 11. In the result, petition, accordingly, stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. C.C. as per rules.