Shambhulal Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2999 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

               WRIT APPEAL No. 568 / 2021
      SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
               WRIT APPEAL No. 569 / 2021
      SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
                                                       --- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 06/07/2021
     Heard through video conferencing.
     Mr. Prasanna Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
appellants.
     Mr. Shreyraj Saxena, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent - State.

With consent finally heard.

W.A.No. 568/2021 : The appellant / petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, was removed by order dated 21/1/2020 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandsaur in exercise of powers conferred under Section 40 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam (Panchayat Adhiniyam). The petitioner although had a statutory remedy of appeal, directly approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3434/2020. Initially the Writ Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 21/1/2020 by order dated 11/2/2020. The petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal and directly approached the High Court by contending that principles of natural justice were grossly violated and without affording full, reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 21/1/2020 was passed.

The matter was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and was decided by order dated 10/6/2021. The learned Single Judge opined that since the petitioner has an HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 568 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 569 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

--- 2 ---

alternative remedy of appeal, the writ petitioner deserves to be relegated to avail the said remedy.

Mr. Prasanna Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant / petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, completed various works but completion certificate was not issued by the concerned Sub-Engineer. Petitioner's repeated requests for providing completion certificate could not fetch any result. Petitioner even prayed for change of Sub-Engineer so that another officer can undertake the exercise and give necessary certificate. All these aspects were not gone into by the concerned Authority. Petitioner placed reliance on various judgments which were reproduced by the learned Single Judge. The judgment reported in 2014 (4) MPHT 350 (DB) Chandrakanta Bai Vs. State of M.P. and others, shows that the Division Bench disapproved the order of learned Single Judge in not entertaining the petition and relegating the appellant therein to avail appellate remedy because it was a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order although judgments have been reproduced but no reasons are assigned as to why petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of said judgments.

The prayer is opposed by Mr. Shreyraj Saxena, learned Dy. Advocate General. Mr. Saxena supported the impugned HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 568 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 569 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

--- 3 ---

order.

We find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments and even filed written submissions, the contention should have been dealt with. If petitioner placed reliance on the judgments wherein appellate remedy was not held to be bar, it should have been seen whether those judgments can be pressed into service in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. However, we do not find any such discussion and analysis regarding those judgments in the impugned order dated 10/6/2021.

Resultantly, the order dated 10/6/2021 is set aside and W.P.No. 3434/2020 is restored to its original number. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Let the Writ Court decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

W.A.No. 569/2021 : The appellant / petitioner filed a W.P.No. 3694/2021 against the order dated 9/2/2021 whereby he has been removed from the post of "Pradhan" . The petitioner occupied the post of Pradhan being a Sarpanch. The petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch in exercise of powers conferred under Section 40 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam (Panchayat Adhiniyam). The said removal order dated 21/1/2020 was assailed by the petitioner in W.P.No. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 568 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 569 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

--- 4 ---

3434/2020. The Writ Court although initially stayed the operation of order dated 21/1/2020, dismissed said Writ Petition on 10/6/2021. Since dismissal order was not interfered with and as a consequence thereof stay stood merged in the final order, interference was declined in W.P.No. 3694/2021 also. In other words, the learned Single Judge opined that if petitioner stood removed from the post of Sarpanch, he has no legal right whatsoever to remain a Pradhan.

Mr. Bhatnagar, submits that in connected W.A.No. 568/2021, this Court has already set aside the order passed in W.P.No. 3434/2020 and remitted the matter back before the learned Single Judge, hence the appellant deserves to succeed in this matter also.

Mr. Shreyraj Saxena, did not dispute that such an order is passed in the connected Writ Appeal.

In the connected Writ Appeal No.568/2021, we have set aside the order of learned Single Judge dated 10/6/2021 and remitted the matter back before the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication. Thus the very premise on the strength of which the W.P.No. 3694/2021 was dismissed, does not survive. Putting it differently, the sole reason of dismissal of W.P.No. 3694/2021 was that the petitioner was no more a Sarpanch. Since the order of learned Single Judge has been set aside, we deem it proper to remit this matter also for fresh HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 568 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 569 / 2021 SHAMBHULAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

--- 5 ---

consideration.

As a consequence, order dated 10/6/2021 passed in W.P.No. 3694/2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.

The Registry may list both the Writ Petitions ie., W.P.No. 3434/2020 and W.P.No. 3694/2021 in the next week before the learned Single Judge.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

                     (SUJOY PAUL)                  (ANIL VERMA)
                       JUDGE                         JUDGE
         KR




Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.07.06 16:29:08 +05'30'