Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 924 (MP)

Sumitra Dhurve v. State of M. P.

2016-10-17

R.S.JHA

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 30.3.2016 and 20.4.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No.3, in proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority concerned has passed orders under section 92 of the Act, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount due from her and on the failure of the petitioner to do so, has issued a warrant of arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority concerned has passed orders without forming an opinion as to whether any amount is due from the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that an enquiry in respect of misappropriation of fund regarding construction of toilet in Janpad Panchayat, Bidhua, District Chhindwara was conducted in which it was found that the petitioner and the Secretary had misappropriated a sum of Rs.7,90,400/-, pursuant to which directions were issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bidhua that proceedings for recovery of the amount under section 92 of the Act, be initiated against the petitioner/sarpanch and the Secretary. Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings a show cause notice dated 1.8.2015 under section 92 of the Act, was issued to the petitioner. Order sheets indicated that inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on several occasions while the Secretary appeared and deposited certain amount. As the petitioner did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on a number of occasions nor did she deposit the amount, a warrant of arrested was issued against her. A perusal of the order sheet dated 29.6.2016 indicates that even the warrant issued against the petitioner was not served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the date of the validity of the warrant was extended. However, subsequently, on the same date the petitioner appeared before the authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhindwara and deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- and sought time to deposit the remaining amount. Order sheet also indicates that the matter was thereafter taken up on 13.7.2016 on which date the petitioner against remained absent. However, subsequently, on the same date the petitioner appeared before the authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhindwara and deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- and sought time to deposit the remaining amount. Order sheet also indicates that the matter was thereafter taken up on 13.7.2016 on which date the petitioner against remained absent. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer without doing anything further, adjourned the matter and directed its listing on 27.7.2016. 4. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition raising the grounds as stated above. 5. From a perusal of the aforesaid documents filed by the petitioner along with the petition, it is apparent that the authority had initiated proceedings against the petitioner after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has not filed any reply to the same till date. The order sheet indicate that the petitioner has not been appearing before the Sub-Divisional Officer and it is only when warrant was issued against her that she appeared and deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- and sought time to deposit the remaining amount. The last order sheet that has been filed by the petitioner dated 13.7.2016 indicates that on that date no fresh warrant was issued against the petitioner nor was the date of validity of the warrant extended by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The aforesaid aspect indicates that the Sub-Divisional Officer is waiting for further steps to be taken by the petitioner and that he is also giving full opportunity to the petitioner of hearing but the petitioner is herself not appearing before him. 6. A perusal of the provisions of section 91 of the Act, and rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, indicates that any and every order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is appealable before the Collector and, therefore, apparently the petitioner has the alternative efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Collector, if aggrieved by any order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, the petitioner, instead of doing so, has directly approached this Court and no reason has been mentioned in the petition for by-passing the alternative efficacious statutory remedy. 7. However, the petitioner, instead of doing so, has directly approached this Court and no reason has been mentioned in the petition for by-passing the alternative efficacious statutory remedy. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioner has been served with a notice by the SDO in proceedings under section 92 of the Act, but has chose not to file any reply to the same or oppose the same till date and has infact deposited a part of the amount before the SDO and has sought further time to do so and as the petitioner is being given full opportunity of hearing which she can avail and also has the remedy of approaching the appellate authority against the impugned order, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition filed by the petitioner at this stage. 8. The petition, filed by the petitioner, is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the SDO by filing a reply in the matter and justify her claim or in the alternative to file an appeal against the order passed by the SDO, if so advised. 9. To enable the petitioner to avail of the aforesaid liberty granted by this Court, it is ordered that for a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Jaideep Sirpurkar for petitioner; Vaibhav Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.