Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 392 (MP)

Ram Singh v. State of M. P.

2009-03-25

SANJAY YADAV

body2009
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is heard finally. 2. Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 18.3.2008; passed by the Additional Collector, Damoh; whereby the resolution of Gram Panchayat, Bisnakhedi passed on 26.8.2007 and the order dated 27.8.2007 passed by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bisnakhedi was set aside. The impugned order has been passed by the Additional Collector in exercise of his revision powers under M.P. Panchayat, (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the petitioner since was in accordance with the Panchayat Kanni Scheme notified by the Govt. of M.P. In the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on 12.9.1995 by following the procedure as laid down under Clauses 4.4 and 4.5 it could not have been subjected to challenge in revision. It is contended, that the order passed by the Gram Panchayat or the Sarpanch is appealable under rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1995, and though the objection were raised before the Additional Collector, however, the same were brushed aside in cryptic manner and the Additional Commissioner, in usurpation of appellate powers passed the impugned order, which, it is urged, is without jurisdiction. 4. The respondents on their turn supported the impugned order. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with the Panchayat Karmi Scheme of 1995 where under Clauses 4.4 and 4.5 provide for the procedure for appointment in the following terms : "4.4 All the applications shall be placed before the General Body of the Gram Panchayat for consideration. General Body of the Gram Panchayat after consideration on the applications shall select a candidate and place a candidate in the waiting list. 4.5 Panchayat by virtue of its resolution shall make such appointment within the specified time limit, on full time/part time or contract basis. Sarpanch shall issue appointment letter to selected persons. Its copy shall be forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, for record. Brief information about the 'Panchayat Karmi' shall be given therein. A register shall be maintained in the Janpad Panchayat and entries to this effect shall be made. " Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 provides for the forum for redressal of grievance. It stipulates : 3. Its copy shall be forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, for record. Brief information about the 'Panchayat Karmi' shall be given therein. A register shall be maintained in the Janpad Panchayat and entries to this effect shall be made. " Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 provides for the forum for redressal of grievance. It stipulates : 3. Appeal and Appellant Authorities :- Save where it has been otherwise provided in the Act or Rules or Bye-laws made there under, an appeal shall lie :(a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under any provision of the Act or Rules of Bye-laws made there under -- to the Collector. (b) in the case of an order passed by the Collect -- or under any provision of the Act or Rules or Bye-laws made there under to the Commissioner. (c) in the case of an order passed by the Commissioner or Director of Panchayat -- to the State Government. (d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat specified in Column (I) of the Table below -- to the authority specified in the corresponding entry in Column (2) thereto. TABLE (1) (2) (a) Gram Panchayat Sub-Divisional Officer (b) Janpad Panchayat Collector. (c) Zila Panchayat Commissioner. 6. Thus, if a person is aggrieved of an order passed by the Gram Panchayat the remedy would lie in appeal under rule 3 (1) of the Rules, 1995 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. It has been held by the Divisional Bench of this Court in Devidayal Raikwar v. State of M.P. and others, W.A.No. 360/2008, decided on 8.4.2008, 2009 (1) JLJ 7 =ILR (2008) MP 1370, wherein their Lordships while taking into consideration the provision of Panchayat Karmi Scheme and the Rules of 1995 were pleased to observe: "16. In the result, we hold that an appeal would lie against an order of appointment of Panchayat Karmi issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat under section 91 of the Adhiniyam read with rule 3 of the Rules of 1995. Obviously, while deciding the appeal, the Appellant Authority will have all necessary powers to grant relief in a case where he decides to allow the appeal and such powers will also include the power to decide whether the selection made by the Gram Panchayat or adopting a resolution was not correct either on facts or in law. Obviously, while deciding the appeal, the Appellant Authority will have all necessary powers to grant relief in a case where he decides to allow the appeal and such powers will also include the power to decide whether the selection made by the Gram Panchayat or adopting a resolution was not correct either on facts or in law. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly and the appeal stands disposed of In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their respective costs." 7. In the case at hand the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat, Bisnakhedi and consequent order of appointment by the Sarpanch which was subjected t challenge before the Additional Collector, invoking his Revisional jurisdiction. the considered opinion of this Court, while keeping in view the provisions of Panchayat Karmi Scheme, Rules of 1995 and the law laid down by the Division Bench in Devidayal Raikwar (supra) it was beyond the powers of the Additional Collector to have entertained the revision, when the forum for appeal was available. 8. In result, the petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 18.3.2008 is hereby quashed. It will, however, be open for the respondents, who are aggrieved of the order of appointment of the petitioner, to challenge the same by filing an appeal and if such appeal is preferred, then the Appellate Authority shall advert to the merit of the matter and not dismiss the same merely on the ground of limitation. It is made c1earthat this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. The petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.