Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 898 (MP)

Abhilasha Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-09-14

R.S.JHA

body2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order 4.9.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa allowing the revision filed by the respondent No.7 and thereby setting aside the order passed by the Collector, Satna rejecting the application filed by the respondent No.7 for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Didaundh, Janpad Panchayat Sohawal, District Satna. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has set aside a well reasoned order passed by the respondent No.3, Collector, Satna whereby the proceedings held by the SDO have been set aside on account of the fact that the procedure prescribed under section 40 regarding giving of proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case was not followed. It is submitted that the respondent No.2-authority has not applied its mind to the aforesaid aspect and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that in view of the interim orders passed by the appellate authority and the first revisional authority the petitioner has been continuing as Sarpanch and, therefore, the interim order in his favour be passed. 3. The lelarned counsel for the respondent No.7, on caveat, per contra, submits that the petitioner has committed several irregularities and illegalities and his continuance as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not in the interest of public. It is stated that the respondent No.2, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has set aside the order passed by the Collector, Satna which does not warrant interference of this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is subject to revision before the State Government under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, however, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing the aforesaid remedy. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is subject to revision before the State Government under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, however, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing the aforesaid remedy. As the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition can well be considered by the said authorities, I am of the considered opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of second revision available to him under the law before the State Government in the light of a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Ramkinkar Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. and others [ 2012(III) MPWN 4 = 2012(2) MPLJ 690 ]. 6. In the circumstances, with the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly disposed of. It is directed that in case the petitioner files such a revision before the State Government along with a copy of order passed today and a copy of the petition and an application for interim relief within fifteen days of obtaining the same, the operation of the impugned order dated 4.9.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 shall remain stayed till an order on the application of the petitioner seeking interim relief in the matter is passed by the second revisional authority. 7. With the aforesaid liberty/directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.