Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1049 (MP)

Ramkaran Sharma v. State of M. P.

2016-11-21

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, SHEEL NAGU

body2016
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed in public interest seeks the following reliefs : (i) That, the respondents No.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to initiate enquiry against the respondents No.4 and 5. (ii) That, the respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to stop the further allocation of funds till the enquiry against the respondents are concluded. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 2. The grievance of petitioners seems to be that they have preferred various representations containing complaints of financial irregularities against the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat of Village Purvansh Kala and Ikhara, but to no avail. 3. It is submitted that the complaints have though been acted upon to the extent of CEO, Zila Panchayat District Morena writing letter to the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Ambah District Morena for submitting a report on the complaint filed by petitioners followed by another letter dated 21.7.2016 of the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Ambah against the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Purvansh Kala alleging four charges against him and seeking his explanation within three days, failing which proceedings under section 69(1) would be initiated. The petitioners contend that against the Secretary, no further action has been taken after issuance of the said show cause notice dated 21.7.2016 and in respect of the Sarpanch, no action has been initiated at all. 4. As regards, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, it is evident that the action has been initiated by issuing a charge sheet. 5. As regards the Sarpanch, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no action at all has been taken pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioners. Undoubtedly, the SDO is the prescribed authority in respect of Sarpanch under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993. 6. 5. As regards the Sarpanch, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no action at all has been taken pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioners. Undoubtedly, the SDO is the prescribed authority in respect of Sarpanch under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993. 6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of without commenting upon merits of the claim of petitioner or the allegations made against the Sarpanch and Secretary in following terms : (a) In respect of Sarpanch Gram Panchayats, Purawas Kala and Ikhara, Janpad Panchayat, Ambah District Morena, petitioners are directed to file a fresh complaint alongwith the copy of this order before the prescribed authority i.e. the SDO, Ambah District Morena, which if filed within a period of 30 working days from today shall be acted upon by the SDO by passing appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. (b) In regard to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayats, Purawas Kala and Ikhara, Janpad Panchayat, Ambah Distt. Morena, the competent authority is the CEO of Zila Panchayat who accordingly is directed to conclude the proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 21.7.2016 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if the same have not yet been completed. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not commented upon merits of the allegations made by petitioners and it is open to the competent authorities to take suitable decisions either way in terms of law. Sankalp Sharma for petitioners; Vishal Mishra, Additional Advocate General for respondents/State.