Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1473 (MP)

Ramesh Iwnati v. State of M. P.

2014-11-14

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15.7.2008 passed by respondent No.3 by which he has been removed from the post of Sarpanch and disqualified for the period of six years for contesting the election under section 40(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bagbardhiya in the year 2005. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.12.2007 under section 40 of the Adhiniyam. The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice on 31.1.2008. After submitting the reply the Sub Divisional Officer has obtained report from Chief Executive Officer behind the back of the petitioner and the said report was not supplied to the petitioner, however, without giving any opportunity of leading evidence to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2008 thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and he has been debarred from contesting the election for a period of six years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.3 contrary to the procedure prescribed under section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. He further submits that an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner for adducing the evidence and all the relevant evidence which are relied, that evidence of the respondents should have been taken in his presence and he should have been given opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the respondents, however, in the present case the said procedure is not followed by respondent No.3. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Although show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but an interim order has also been passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner on 30.7.2008 and the respondents have not filed any reply till today. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the period for which the petitioner was appointed as Sarpanch has already been expired and he has completed his tenure. However, as the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure prescribed under section 40(1) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and, therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 5. However, as the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure prescribed under section 40(1) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and, therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure-P/3) is hereby set aside.