Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 884 (MP)

Rekha Gontia v. State of M. P.

2012-09-12

R.S.JHA

body2012
Judgment 1. The petitioner, who has been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhikhampur, Tahsil Niwas, District Mandla under Section 40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14-8-2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in Case No. 555/A-89/A-15/11-12, whereby the stay granted in the revision filed by the petitioner has been vacated on the application filed by the respondent No.4. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 is not a necessary party as has been held by the Collector in the previous proceedings nor has she been impleaded as respondent in the revision, in spite of which, the respondent/Additional Commisioner has vacated the interim order of stay existing favour of the petitioner which is contrary to law. It is further submited that the petitioner had deposited certain amount of money under protest before the Collector which has been treated as acceptance of guilt by the Additional Commissioner in the interim order which is also contrary to law. Lastly, it is stated that the Additional Commissioner has in the interim order recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner at the interim stage which in not permissible and as the petitioner has a prima facie case. Therefore the respondent has erred in law in vacating the interim order passed in her favour. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 4. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the impugned order dated 14-8-2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur is an interim order vacating stay in the revision filed by the petitioner which is still pending adjudication and has yet to be decided by the Additional commissioner finally. 5. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that any observation made by the authority while deciding an interlocutory application would have no impact on the ultimate decision in the revision which will be heard and decided on its own merits. That apart, all the objection raised by the petitioner before this Court can be taken up before authority at the time of bearing of the revision which, it goes without saying, shall be finally decided by the authority by passing a reasoned order. 6. That apart, all the objection raised by the petitioner before this Court can be taken up before authority at the time of bearing of the revision which, it goes without saying, shall be finally decided by the authority by passing a reasoned order. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner, authority as the matter is pending adjudication before the Additional Commissioner. 7. The petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly disponsed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up all issues before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. 8. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so, the said authority shall consider and decide each one of issue by passing a reasoned order without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned interim order dated 14-8-2012. That apart, as the matter relates to the Gram Panchayat, therefore, in the interest of public at large as well as justice the matter is required to be decided early, therefore, it is further directed that in case the petitioner moves an application for urgent hearing, it shall be taken up and decided along with the revision expeditiously in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition before the concerned authority. 9. With the aforesaid liberty/directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.