Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 822 (MP)

Narayan Singh Prajapati v. State of M. P.

2014-07-14

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard. 2. Shri Sharma, at the outset, submits that this matter is exactly identical to WP No. 3950 of 2011. 3. Shri Chaubey examined the same and did not dispute the contention. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In WP No. 3950 of 2014 this Court opined as under:- 2. Assailing this order on a singular ground, Shri Devendra Sharma submits that petitioner earlier filed WP No. 4473 of 2009 before this Court, which was decided on 31.01.2011. This Court directed to constitute a Committee afresh in view of judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC (1) and in accordance with circulars of the State Govt. Respondents have erred in rejecting the claim on the basis of decision of earlier committee which decided his fate. The said committee was constituted on 08.07.2009. 3. The prayer is opposed by Mrs. Patankar. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. This Court in WP No. 4473 of 2009 directed as under:- Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that the case of the petitioner shall be considered afresh by the Committee constituted by the State Government in pursuance to the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC (1) and in the light of 16.05.2007 and 06.09.2008. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. This order was passed on 31.01.2011. A bare perusal of this order makes it clear that respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, whereas para 6 of the impugned order shows that rejection is based on the decision of the Committee which considered the case of the petitioner on 08.07.2009. Thus, there is no fresh constitution of Committee and consideration as directed by this Court. Petitioner deserves to succeed on this ground alone. 7. Thus, there is no fresh constitution of Committee and consideration as directed by this Court. Petitioner deserves to succeed on this ground alone. 7. Resultantly, the order dated 31.03.2013 is set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, as directed in the earlier round of litigation. Entire exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 6. The present case is exactly identical to aforesaid Writ Petition. Considering the aforesaid, impugned order dated 31.03.2011 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, as directed in earlier round of litigation. The entire exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.