Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 788 (MP)

Sankar Baghel v. State of M. P.

2019-11-14

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Add. Commissioner, Indore dated 16.4.2018 whereby the revision petition has been accepted for hearing but the prayer for interim relief has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the recovery was directed against the petitioner under section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam and against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner had initially preferred WP No. 8480/2015 and this Court on 17.11.2016 had disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal by further directing that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner for a period of 8 weeks. He further submits that thereafter the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Addl. Collector and in that appeal the interim relief was granted but the appeal was finally dismissed by order dated 9.2.2018 and against this order, the revision petition has been preferred. He has further submitted that till this stage, the petitioner was protected and the revision is yet to be decided, therefore, till the decision of the revision petition the protection be extended. 3. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that this Court during the pendency of WP No. 8480/2015 as also the Addl. Collector during the pendency of first appeal, had protected the petitioner and the impugned recovery has not been effected till now. Against the order of the Addl. Collector the Addl. Commissioner has already entertained the revision petition. The impugned order reflects that while rejecting the application for stay, no proper reasons have been assigned and only a cryptic order has been passed. Since the revision petition is yet to be decided on merit, therefore, it would be in the fitness of the things that the respondents are restrained from taking coercive action till the revision is decided. 5. Counsel for the State has also not disputed that the revision petition is required to be decided within a time bound period. 6. Since the revision petition is yet to be decided on merit, therefore, it would be in the fitness of the things that the respondents are restrained from taking coercive action till the revision is decided. 5. Counsel for the State has also not disputed that the revision petition is required to be decided within a time bound period. 6. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.4.2018 relating to rejection of the petitioner's prayer for stay is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of by directing the revisional authority to decide the revision petition itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. No coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned recovery order till the revision petition is decided.