Sukhdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1043188
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnAug-03-2012
AppellantSukhdeo
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.p.no.11435/2012 (sukhdeo versus state of mp and others.03.08.2012 heard shri sankalp kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the s.d.o., betul whereby he has been removed from the post of sarpanch under the provisions of section 40 of the m.p.panchayat raj avam gram swaraj adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the act”.).it is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been given proper opportunity of hearing before being removed. relying upon several decisions of this court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and deserves to be remanded to the s.d.o.for decision afresh. i have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as provisions of section 40 of the act which only provides giving opportunity to show cause to the person under section 40 of the act. quite apart from the above, whether or not the respondents have complied with the provisions of section 40 is also a question of fact which is required to be decided by the concerned authority and not this court under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india and for this purpose the provisions of the act and the rules framed thereunder itself provide a statutory efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed under section 40 of the act. as the availability of such remedy is not disputed, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order before the appellate authority in accordance with law. it goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within 15 days along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, as well as pass orders on the application for interim relief as early as possible. it is further directed that till orders on the interim application are not passed taking into consideration the provisions of law and the judgments passed by this court, operation of the impugned order dated 09.07.2012 shall remain stayed. with the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) judge msp
Judgment:

W.P.No.11435/2012 (Sukhdeo versus State of MP and otheRs.03.08.2012 Heard Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the S.D.O., Betul whereby he has been removed from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the Act”.).It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been given proper opportunity of hearing before being removed.

Relying upon several decisions of this court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and deserves to be remanded to the S.D.O.for decision afresh.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as provisions of section 40 of the Act which only provides giving opportunity to show cause to the person under section 40 of the Act.

Quite apart from the above, whether or not the respondents have complied with the provisions of section 40 is also a question of fact which is required to be decided by the concerned authority and not this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and for this purpose the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder itself provide a statutory efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed under section 40 of the Act.

As the availability of such remedy is not disputed, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order before the appellate authority in accordance with law.

It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within 15 days along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, as well as pass orders on the application for interim relief as early as possible.

It is further directed that till orders on the interim application are not passed taking into consideration the provisions of law and the judgments passed by this court, operation of the impugned order dated 09.07.2012 shall remain stayed.

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

C.C.as per rules.

(R.S.Jha) Judge msp