Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bipin Chand Banzal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1 W.P.No.7677-2022
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
W.P. No.7677/2022
(BIPIN CHAND BANZAL Vs STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated: 12/04/2022
Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for State.
Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
This Court after hearing learned counsel for rival parties at length, reserved
this case for pronouncement of the final order in near future.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has primarily submitted in support of prayer
for interim relief that the impugned order of grant of sanction for prosecution issued
by the State is passed by an Authority, which is neither the Authority competent to
remove the petitioner (An Executive Engineer with Madhya Pradesh State
Agricultural Marketing Board) nor is one of the Authorities in the hierarchy of
Authorities recognized by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 ("Act of 1972"
for brevity) or any of the rules framed thereunder including the Madhya Pradesh
Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Nidhi Lekha Tatha Rajya Vipnan Sewa Ki Riti Tatha
Anya Vishaya) Niyam, 1980 ("Act of 1982" for brevity).
2.1. It is submitted that though the order has been passed in the name and by the
order of Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh but since the Managing Director
of the Board is vested with the exclusive power of Appointing Officers and
employees of the Board over whom the Managing Director exercises supervision
and control as per Section 42-D of the 1980 Act and the State Government has no
role to play in the matter of appointment or discipline in regard to the Officers of the
Board except having power to issue general directions to the Board and Mandi
Committees. The impugned order has thus been passed by the incompetent
Authority.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submit that the Managing
Director had in fact taken decision and thereafter referred the matter to the State
Government, which in turn, passed the impugned order of grant of sanction for
prosecution. Thus, it is submitted that since Managing Director of the Board who is
Competent Authority and the said Authority had taken a conscious decision of
granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner, the impugned order cannot
be found fault with merely because it is shown to be passed by the State
Government.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the charge-sheet by the
Prosecuting Agency shall be filed tomorrow which will set the law in motion and
place the petitioner under deemed suspension and, therefore, it is submitted that the
petitioner having a prima facie case needs to be protected.
5. Till the pronouncement of the final judgment in the present case, which has
been argued purely on the question of law, this Court directs that no coercive step
shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order of grant of
sanction for prosecution, even if charge-sheet is filed by the prosecution agency.
6. However, it is clarified that this restraint order will not dissuade the trial
Court from proceeding the trial.
7. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall participate in the trial
irrespective of the aforesaid restraint order.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL
Date: 2022.04.13 11:03:07 +05'30'
Biswal
