Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1113 (MP)

Vishnu Prasad Saket v. State of M. P.

2014-09-04

ANIL SHARMA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant calling in question the tenability of an order dated 7.8.2014 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.12048/2014. 2. Appellant was working as an Assistant Grade-III in the office of the Zila Panchayat District-Umariya. It seems that the Collector-Umariya passed an order on 1.8.2014, whereby the appellant was repatriated back to his parent department i.e. Water Resources Department when he was on deputation in the Zila Panchayat- Umariya. Challenging the repatriation, the writ petition was filed and the order passed by the learned writ Court on 7.8.2014 indicates that when the writ petition was being heard, learned counsel for the present appellant submitted before the writ Court that the appellant has preferred a representation against the repatriation and the same is pending consideration before the Collector, therefore, it was urged that the Collector be directed to decide the representation. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Collector to decide the representation within 30 days. The observations made by the writ Court on 7.8.2014 in W.P.No.12048/2014 reads as under : “During course of submission, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation against repatriation and the same is pending consideration before Collector, Umariya, therefore, it is urged that the Collector, Umariya may be directed to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner within a specific time frame. In view whereof, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2-Collector, Umariya to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner expeditiously, however, not later than 30 days from the date of communication of this order.” 4. Now contrary to the aforesaid submission, this writ appeal has been filed on merit and it is indicated that in certain other cases pertaining to the same repatriation on 7.8.2014, a coordinate bench of this Court has interfered and granted stay and, therefore, the writ Court committed an error in disposing of the matter by directing for considering the representation. 5. Shri Udayan Tiwari, learned counsel took us through the material available on record and indicated that the repatriation is unsustainable. 5. Shri Udayan Tiwari, learned counsel took us through the material available on record and indicated that the repatriation is unsustainable. However, when a question was posed to him as to why the counsel made a statement for deciding the representation and when such a submission is made, how a writ appeal could be filed, when this Court inspected the matter, learned counsel prays for time to seek instructions. 6. We are not inclined to grant any time for seeking instructions for the simple reason that if a counsel had made a submission contrary to the instructions given, the appellant should have stated so in the memorandum of appeal, when the appeal was filed. The appellant has prepared and instructed the counsel for preparing of the appeal after he received a copy of the order passed and nowhere in the memorandum of appeal, is it indicated that contrary to the instructions given, the counsel made the submission. 7. Once the counsel has made a statement and the Court accepting the same, disposed of the writ petition, it is not appropriate on the part of the appellant now to turn around and file this appeal challenging the order passed. 8. That apart, it is indicated in Paragraph-12 of the memorandum of appeal that the writ Court directed the Chief Executive Officer to decide the representation and it is stated that the Collector having passed the order, the Chief Executive Officer cannot over-rule the decision of the Collector. This assertion of the appellant also seems to be incorrect as in the order passed on 7.8.2014, no direction is issued to the Chief Executive Officer to decide the representation, on the contrary, the direction is to Respondent No.2-Collector Umariya to decide the representation. 9. Taking note of the conduct of the appellant in the matter and considering the totality of the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. Once the counsel made a request to the Court for disposal of the representation and when accepting the same, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing for disposal of the representation, in the absence of any material to show that the counsel has misrepresented the matter or made submission contrary to the instructions given and when no action is taken against the counsel, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. 10. 10. The Collector, Umariya is directed to proceed to decide the representation, as ordered by the writ Court. 11. With the aforesaid, finding no ground, the appeal is dismissed. .....................