Sunil Kumar Manepure Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Sunil Kumar Manepure vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 07, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1043020

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1043020
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 07, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar Manepure

Advocate Shri. Rajendra Shrivastava

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Advocate Shri. Rahul Tripathi, Shri. Sanjay Sharma

Excerpt

.....tahsil lanji, district balaghat and order annexure p-11 dated 9.8.2011 passed by the collector balaghat. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records it is clear that the order annexure p-9 dated 25.7.2011 was passed by the sub divisional officer exercising the powers of appeal conferred upon him under the panchayat appeal and revision rules, 1995 and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to direct for placing the order before the collector under section 85(1) of the m.p.panchayat raj evam gram swaraj adhiniyam, to that extent the order passed by the s.d.o.requires modification. accordingly, the directions contained in the order passed by the s.d.o.annexure p-9 dated 25.7.2011 directing for forwarding the matter for consideration before the collector under section 85(1) is quashed and it is held that order passed by the s.d.o.as is contained in annexure p-9 is a final order passed by him exercising powers of appellate authority as available under rule 3 of the panchayat appeal and revision rules. once it is so held by this court that a revision under rule 5 of the appeal and revision rules 2 would be maintainable against the collector, therefore, the order annexure p-11 dated 9.8.2011 need not be interfered with. instead it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed memorandum before the collector, the collector treating the same to be a revision under the panchayat appeal and revision rules shall decide the same in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within 2 months. till then the interim order passed by this court shall continue to remain in operation. with the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge ss*

Full Judgment

Sunil Kumar Manepure versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.14336 ”

7. 9.2012 Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Smt.

D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.

Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

Matter pertains to appointment of Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary to the Panchayat in question and challenge in this writ petition is made to an order Annexure P-9 dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil Lanji, District Balaghat and order Annexure P-11 dated 9.8.2011 passed by the Collector Balaghat.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records it is clear that the order Annexure P-9 dated 25.7.2011 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer exercising the powers of appeal conferred upon him under the Panchayat Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995 and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to direct for placing the order before the Collector under Section 85(1) of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, to that extent the order passed by the S.D.O.requires modification.

Accordingly, the directions contained in the order passed by the S.D.O.Annexure P-9 dated 25.7.2011 directing for forwarding the matter for consideration before the Collector under Section 85(1) is quashed and it is held that order passed by the S.D.O.as is contained in Annexure P-9 is a final order passed by him exercising powers of appellate authority as available under rule 3 of the Panchayat Appeal and Revision Rules.

Once it is so held by this Court that a revision under rule 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules 2 would be maintainable against the Collector, therefore, the order Annexure P-11 dated 9.8.2011 need not be interfered with.

Instead it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed memorandum before the Collector, the Collector treating the same to be a revision under the Panchayat Appeal and Revision Rules shall decide the same in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within 2 months.

Till then the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to remain in operation.

With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Sunil Kumar Manepure vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education