Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1203 (MP)

Ranveer Singh v. State of M. P.

2009-10-20

S.K.GANGELE

body2009
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner have filed this petition challenging Annexures-P/1 & P/3 and also the quashment of election of the respondent No.4 as president watershed committee. The petitioners submitted a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Officer mentioning the fact that a meeting of Gram Sabha was said to be conducted on 15.8.2008 and in the aforesaid meeting, the respondent No. 4, who is the brother of the Sarpanch respondent No.2 has been appointed as president of the watershed committee. However, no agenda was issued of the aforesaid meeting, neither any meeting was conducted by the Sarpanch to this effect and only signatures of some residents of village have been obtained and in illegal manner the respondent No.4 has been elected as president of the watershed committee. The petitioners also filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Guna, that appeal of the petitioners have been dismissed by the authority vide order dated 1.4.2009, Annexure P/1 after holding that no appeal is maintainable against the election of the respondent No.4, as president. The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated 30.6.2008, Annexure P/3, has also rejected the complaint of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the election of respondent No.4 as president, watershed committee is illegal. No agenda of the meeting was issued for the meeting, neither any meeting has been conducted The Sarpanch illegally declared the respondent No.4, who is his real brother of Sarpanch, as president of watershed committee. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 & 3 has submitted that the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable. An appeal is provided with regard to the election of president of watershed committee. 5. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the respondent No. 4 has been elected as president of the watershed committee by the Gram Sabha in the meeting. 6. Along with return filed by the respondent No. l/State, a copy of Panchanama of some villagers have been filed in which it has been mentioned that a meeting of Gram Sabha was called at the school building on 15thAugust, 2008 and in the aforesaid meeting, the respondent No.4 has been elected as Sarpanch. The Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an inquiry and found that the meeting of the Gram Sabha was held and respondent No.4 has been elected as president watershed committee. Same facts have been stated by the respondent No.4 in return filed separately. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an inquiry and found that the meeting of the Gram Sabha was held and respondent No.4 has been elected as president watershed committee. Same facts have been stated by the respondent No.4 in return filed separately. 7. For the purpose of conducting meeting of the Gram Sabha, the State Government has framed rules named as 'Madhya Pradesh Gram Sabha (procedure of Meeting) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called as the 'Rules of 200 1'). In exercise of powers conferred by the Sub-section (1) of Section 95 read with Section 6 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj, Adhinyam, 1993 (1 of1994).As per the Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules, the meeting of Gram Sabha shall be held at the Headquarters of the Gram Sabha. Rule 4 of Rules, 2001, prescribes manner of giving notice of the meeting, which is as under: "4. Manner of giving notice the meeting.- (1) Notice of every meeting of the Gram Sabha specifying date time and place and business to be transacted shall be given in From 1 [appended to these rules] at least seven days before the date of the meeting. In case of any emergency, the nature of which shall be recorded in writing, a meeting can be called with a prior notice of clear three days. (2) Such notice of the meeting shall be published. (a) by affixing a copy of notice at conspicuous places in the Gram Sabha area; and (b) by making an announcement by beat of drum in the Gram Sabha area." 8. The petitioners have specifically raised a plea in the petition and also raised a ground (Ground No. G in the petition) that no meeting was held by the Panchayat as per the provisions of Rules of 2001. The respondents in their return did not specify the fact that whether any notice of the meeting was issued by the Panchayat in Form 1. As per the Form 1, a notice has to be issued under signature of Secretary of the Gram Sabha. From the record and return filed by the respondents, it is clear that no such notice has been issued by the Gram Sabha for the purpose of meeting of election of watershed committee. Hence, the election of the respondent No.4 as president of the watershed committee is contrary to the statutory rules. Both the authorities have not considered the aforesaid aspects. 9. Hence, the election of the respondent No.4 as president of the watershed committee is contrary to the statutory rules. Both the authorities have not considered the aforesaid aspects. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also raised a plea of availability of alternate remedy. As per the 'Madhya Pradesh Gram Sabha (Procedure of Meeting) Rules, 2001' (hereinafter called as the 'Rules of 2001'), an appeal has been provided for questioning the decision of the Gram Sabha. However, the petitioners have already preferred objections before the authorities and that have been decided, no appellate committee has been formed by the authorities. Apart from this, as per judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and Another v. Jahan Khan, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 88 , a writ of certiorari could be issued even if an alternate remedy is available, which is as under: "12. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ Court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; of (ii) where there is failure of principles of nature justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See Whirpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Haebanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., State of H.P. v. Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See Whirpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Haebanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., State of H.P. v. Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.)" Because in this present petition there is violation of statutory rules, hence in my opinion, the petition could not be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. 10. Hence the petition of the petitioners is allowed. Orders, Annexure-P/l and P/3, and, consequently, the meeting of the Gram Sabha dated 15.8.2008 and the election of the respondent No.4 as president of the watershed committee, are hereby set aside. The Gram Panchayat is directed to hold a fresh meeting of the Gram Sabha within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order for the purpose of meeting of the president of watershed committee in accordance with law. No order as to cost.