Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 599 (MP)

Salikram Patle v. State of M. P.

2013-05-06

K.K.Lahoti, Subhash Kakade

body2013
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P. No.6857/2013, dated 16.4.2013 whereby prayer of the petitioners-appellants seeking direction to the respondents for measurement and evaluation of the works done by them has been turned down. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Prescribed Authority), Waraseoni, District Balaghat, contained in Annexure-P/6, was not under challenge before the Writ Court. The only prayer before the writ court was for evaluation and measurement of the works executed by the appellants by some competent person. That the appellants had performed the works viz. construction of murram road and cement-concret drainage etc., however, without evaluation of the works executed by the appellants the order was passed by the respondent No.3 directing recovery to the extent of Rs.1,70,648/- and also for launching criminal prosecution against them. That until and unless the works done by the appellants was evaluated by a proper person, such directions could not have been issued. 3. From a perusal of the records, we find that the aforesaid order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Waraseoni, District Balaghat, dated 30th January, 2013 against which an appeal has been preferred by the appellants and the same is pending for adjudication before the Collector, Balaghat. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that though the appellants had also filed a representation before the Collector, Balaghat (respondent No.2 herein), dated 3.2.2011 contained in Annexure-P/5, but the same has not been considered till date. The aforesaid contention is misconceived. If the representation (Annexure-P/5) has not been considered by the Collector till date, the appellants ought to have moved an appropriate application before the Collector in that regard. But at present, as the order contained in Annexure-P/6 is under challenge in appeal before the Collector, Balaghat we find it appropriate to allow a liberty to the appellants to move the appellate authority, i.e., the Collector, Balaghat for evaluation of the works done by the appellants. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions: (i) The appellants may move an application before the Collector, Balaghat (respondent No.2) for evaluation of the works done, as was made in the letter, dated 3.2.2011, Annexure-P/5. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions: (i) The appellants may move an application before the Collector, Balaghat (respondent No.2) for evaluation of the works done, as was made in the letter, dated 3.2.2011, Annexure-P/5. (ii) If such a prayer is made by the appellants the respondent No.2 who is hearing the appeal against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 30.1.2013, shall be free to consider the prayer made in the aforesaid application in accordance with law. (iii) If the respondent No.2 finds some substance in the contentions made by the appellants, he shall be within his jurisdiction to direct evaluation of the works. 5. With the aforesaid directions the writ appeal is finally disposed of. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The Collector, Balaghat shall be at liberty to deal and decide the appeal in accordance with law.