Adhyaksh Matsyoudyog Sahkari ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6593 MP

                                                                    1                            WP-19411-2020
                                        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                   WP-19411-2020
                                (ADHYAKSH MATSYOUDYOG SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
                                                                    OTHERS)


                                Jabalpur, Dated : 21-10-2021
                                      Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                      Shri Purshottam Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

Petitioner Matsyoudyog Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Surmawah, Panagar, District Jabapur has filed this petition seeking quashing of the order dated 26.11.2020 passed by respondent No.2/Additional Collector (Rural) Jabalpur

whereby the Additional Collector has set aside the resolution of General Body of the Janpad Panchayat, Panagar dated 24.8.2020 whereby a proposal was made to handover 10 year lease in favour of Harijan Adiwasi Avam Picchada Verg Matsya Udyog Sahkari Samiti Surmawah, Panagar, District Jabalpur in exercise of authority vested in the said General Body.

Though an appeal was filed by the fisherman Machhua Sahkari Samiti, Panagar and it has been allowed by the Additional Collector, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal is not maintainable against a resolution of the concerned Janpad Panchayat under Section 91 of the

Panchayat Adhiniyam or Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the impugned order passed in an appeal preferred under Section 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Adhiniyam of 1993") deserves to be quashed and be quashed as such.

Petitioner's counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sagar Machhua Sahkari Samiti Seoni versus Chief Executive Officer, Janpad and Another reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 194 and submitted that in this judgment, a Division Bench of High Court has held that the resolution passed by the Janpad Panchyat cannot be challenged in appeal or revision.

Signature Not Verified Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in his turn submits that the SAN

Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2021.10.27 18:15:03 IST 2 WP-19411-2020 Additional Collector has not entertained the appeal and it is evident from the impugned order that the Additional Collector was conscious of this fact that no appeal is maintainable in terms of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 but has taken cognizance of the resolution in terms of the provisions contained in Section 85(1) and Section 85(2) of the Adhiniyam of 1993 but has committed a technical mistake of setting aside the resolution of the General Body of the

Janpad Panchayat, Panagar in place of keeping it in abeyance and referring the matter to the State Government or the Officer nominated by the State Government for final adjudication in terms of law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Machhali Udyog Sahkari Samiti Maryadit versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2016 (3) MPLJ 327.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in Sagar Machhua Sahkari Samiti Seoni (supra) so also the law laid down in the case of Machhali Udyog Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (supra) as well as the impugned order, it is evident that the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur is to be held to be an order passed under Section 85(1) of the Adhiniyam of 1993 and this petition can be disposed of in the following terms:-

1.That the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur shall be treated to be an order of suspension of resolution and not an order quashing the same in view of the fact that Section 85(1) of the Adhiniyam does not confer any power to quash a resolution on the prescribed authority.

2. A copy of the order passed today shall be furnished to the Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur by the respondent No.6 or the petitioner within one week from today and the Additional Signature Not Verified SAN Collector/Collector, Jabalpur shall thereafter immediately and Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2021.10.27 18:15:03 IST 3 WP-19411-2020 forthwith take steps to forward the matter alongwith the necessary requirements as prescribed under Section 85(2) of the Adhiniyam to the State Government or the officer nominated by the State Government for this purpose within ten days from the date of furnishing the certified copy of the order passed by this Court.

3. The State Government or the officer nominated by the State Government for this purpose shall thereafter immediately take up the issue and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of thirty days thereafter.

With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition filed

by the petitioner is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

amit

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2021.10.27 18:15:03 IST