Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Ram Bai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 14, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1052540

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Bai

Advocate Shri. Sanjay Patel

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....being aggrieved by the same he had filed a revision before the commissioner, jabalur which has been dismissed, hence the present petition. before this court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as in case the petitioner is not protected and the orders of his removal is not stayed, the authority would take steps to fill up the post thereby rendering the proceedings infructuous. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case specifically the fact that the matter is pending adjudication before the collector, i find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the commissioner, jabalpur or the collector, mandla, as the petitioner would have full and due opportunity to take up all issues before the collector when the appeal is decided on merits. in view of the aforesaid, while the petition is disposed of, it is however, observed that till decision in the appeal by the collector, no steps to fill up the post of sarpanch by holding a regular election would be taken, though the authority would be entitled to make an interim arrangement in that regard, if so required. looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is further directed that the collector may decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition before the authority by the petitioner, after hearing all concerned. with the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) judge msp

Full Judgment

W.P.No.20944/2012 (Ram Bai versus State of MP and otheRs.14.12.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur whereby the interim order of stay granted by the Collector dated 25.09.2012 has been affirmed and the revision has been dismissed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the S.D.O.has passed an order of removal of the petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ramtila Janpad Panchayat Bijadand District Mandla against which the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Collector which is pending decision.

It is stated that in the said appeal the petitioner had filed an application for stay of order of his removal but the collector by order dated 25.09.2012 has passed an order staying the recovery part only and has not stayed his removal.

It is stated that being aggrieved by the same he had filed a revision before the Commissioner, Jabalur which has been dismissed, hence the present petition.

Before this court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as in case the petitioner is not protected and the orders of his removal is not stayed, the authority would take steps to fill up the post thereby rendering the proceedings infructuous.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case specifically the fact that the matter is pending adjudication before the Collector, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur or the Collector, Mandla, as the petitioner would have full and due opportunity to take up all issues before the Collector when the appeal is decided on merits.

In view of the aforesaid, while the petition is disposed of, it is however, observed that till decision in the appeal by the Collector, no steps to fill up the post of Sarpanch by holding a regular election would be taken, though the authority would be entitled to make an interim arrangement in that regard, if so required.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is further directed that the Collector may decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition before the authority by the petitioner, after hearing all concerned.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

C.C.as per rules.

(R.S.Jha) Judge msp

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial