Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 398 (MP)

Hari Parmar v. State of M. P.

2021-03-19

VIVEK RUSIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Collector Indore whereby he has been removed from the post of Pradhan (Head of Administrative Committee) of Gram Panchayat Muradpur, Janpad Panchayat Sanwar, District Indore. Facts of the case, in short, are under: 1. Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Muradpur, Janpad Panchayat Sanwar, District Indore election held in the year 2015. That all the panchayats in the State of Madhya Pradesh had completed the normal tenure of 5 years but the elections could not be held due to the Covid-19 epidemic, therefore, by way of an alternative arrangement in the exercise of powers conferred under section 87(3)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act') the Government has decided to constitute an Administrative Committee in all the panchayats. Vide letter dated 08.03.2020 the directions were issued to all the Collectors of the district to constitute an Administrative Committees under section 87(3)(b) of the Panchayat Act in each Panchayats in which all the office bearers whose term is over would be the members in the committee and the erstwhile Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat would be Head of the Administrative Committee. Two more persons from the local voter list would also be nominated as members of the committee. The Head of the administrative committee and the Secretary of the panchayat would be authorized to operate the bank accounts till new elections are held. In compliance of the aforesaid Circular, an Administrative Committee has been constituted in the Gram Panchayat Muradpur and the petitioner being the Sarpanch became the Head of the administrative committee. 2. An FIR has been registered against the petitioner under Section 354, 354 (A) (1), 323, 294,506/34 of I.P.C. vide crime No.232/2020. The petitioner filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, vide order dated 23.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.42136/2020 he has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court. Vide order dated 09.02.2021 charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 354, 323 (5 counts), 294 and 506(Part-II) of I.P.C. 3. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court. Vide order dated 09.02.2021 charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 354, 323 (5 counts), 294 and 506(Part-II) of I.P.C. 3. The Collector, Indore issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to reply as why he should not be removed from the post of Praddhan of Administrative Committee as an FIR has been registered against him for the above offence which comes under the category of misconduct under Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and thereafter vide order dated 08.03.2021 he has been removed from the post of Pradhan of Administrative Committee. Hence, present petition before this Court. 4. Shri Sunil Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been wrongly removed from the post of Pradhan upon registration of FIR against him. He has falsely been implicated in the present case, therefore, this Hon'ble court has granted him anticipatory bail. Now only charges have been framed but he has not been held guilty, therefore his removal from the post of Pradhan is not warranted. 5. It is correct that as of today the petitioner has not been convicted so far and only charges have been framed against him, and the criminal trial is pending against him for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. which comes under the category of moral turpitude. 6. The petitioner was appointed as Surpanch in the year 2015 and now the normal term of the panchayat has come to an end. Section 9 of the Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides the duration of the panchayat and according to which every panchayat shall continue for a period of 5 years from the date of appointed for its first meeting. Section 9(2) of the Panchayat Act provides that an election to constitute a panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in subsection (1) but it could not be done due to extraordinary circumstance arrived due to Covid -19 epidemic. 7 Section 87 of the Panchayat Act gives powers to the State Govt. to dissolve the panchayat for default, abuse of powers etc. 7 Section 87 of the Panchayat Act gives powers to the State Govt. to dissolve the panchayat for default, abuse of powers etc. Sub section (3) of section 87 provides that on the dissolution of the panchayat under subsection (1), all powers and duties of the panchayat shall until the panchayat is reconstituted be exercised and performed by such persons or committee of persons as the State Govt. or the prescribed authority may appoint in this behalf and where a committee of persons is so appointed, the State Govt. or the prescribed authority shall also appoint head of such committee. 8 So far the power of the State Government to constitute an Administrative Committee under section 87(3)(b) during this Covid-19 epidemic this Court in the case of Ajeet Singh vs. State of M.P in [W.P.No.9614/2020 decided on 31.07.2020] has already upheld the action of the State. The petitioner is only claiming that once he has been appointed as the head of the committee he cannot be removed till the new elections are held. According to section 87(3)(b) anyone can be appointed as Pradhan of the Administrative Committee, the petitioner being an Ex. Sarpanch cannot claim to continue on the post of Pradhan as a matter of right. In view of the above, the petitioner can not claim as a matter of right to continue as a Pradhan of the Administrative Committee, hence, no writ can be issued. The impugned order has rightly been issued after the framing of charge under section 354 of the I.P.C. . Petitioner is dismissed in limini.