Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 60 of 2022
(SURENDRA TIWARI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-02-2022
Shri Sandeep Kumar Sen, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by
the petitioner seeking following relief:-
(i). Issue an appropriate writ quashing the impugned order
dated 20.1.2021 passed in Case No./0179/Appeal/2020-21 by
Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa (respondent No.2) (Annexure-P-
1) in the interest of justice.
(ii). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to commence proceedings under section 40 and 92 of the
M.P. Panchayat Act against the private respondents herein.
(iii). Call for the entire records of the case of petitioner.
(iv). To grant any relief deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
It is submitted that petitioners are the complainant and in pursuance to the
complaint made against the private respondents in the matter and the proceedings
were initiated against them by the C.E.O. with respect to financial irregularities. The
inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted on 19.10.2020 and the
order was passed for making the recovery against the respondents No.6 to 8 and
further direction was given to initiate proceedings under Section 40 and 92 of the
Panchayat Act. The aforesaid action was being put to challenge by initiating the
proceedings before the Commissioner under Section 91 of M.P. Panchayat Act
and other before this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No.16889/2020. It is
submitted that the writ petition was dismissed imposing exemplary cost of
Rs.15,000/- and the Commissioner has remanded the matter back to the
Signature Not Verified
respondent No.3 for consideration a fresh and after providing an opportunity of
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.02.23 16:56:21 IST hearing to the effective parties to pass a fresh order. It is submitted that once an
inquiry has been conducted in to the matter and the matter has already dealt with
and they were found guilty in the matter, in such circumstances no occasion was
there with the Commissioner to remand the matter. Therefore, the present petition
has been filed.
Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently oppose the submission
stating that the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition. It is submitted
that the complaint submitted by them was taken note of and cognizance was taken
on it and inquiry was conducted and private respondents was found guilty in the
matter. The work of the petitioner is over. The aforesaid aspect was considered by
the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 18387/2020, (M.P. Karmachari
Congress Vs. State of M.P. and others , wherein it is held that once on the
complaint filed by the petitioner, a cognizance is taken then the work of the
petitioner is over. No further locus is available to the petitioner to seek further
action on the complaint or the enquiry report.
The Single Bench in the case of M.P. Karmachari Congress Vs. State of
M.P. and others, (supra) passed in W.P. No. 18387/2020 has held as under :-
“In view of the aforestated legal position, the petitioner has no
locus to file this petition. The right to avail a remedy under the law is the
right of every citizen but such right cannot extend to misuse the judicial
process.â€
The aforesaid order was put to challenge by the petitioner before
the Division Bench in W.A. No. 64/2021, (M.P. Karmachari Congress Vs.
State of M.P. and others) and the order passed by the Single Bench was upheld,
vide order dated 10.2.201 and the Division Bench has held as under :-
“In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the
writ petition on the ground of the locus.
Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed.
In such circumstances, once the cognizance has taken by the authorities then
Signature Not Verified
petitioners has no locus to file a subsequent petition praying for subsequent action
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
against the private respondents.
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.02.23 16:56:21 IST
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it is not disputed that on the complaint made by
the petitioners the cognizance was taken by the authorities and the inquiry was got
conducted into the allegation with respect to the illegalities committed in work of
Panchayat but after submission of the inquiry report, no further action has been
taken by the authorities, therefore, this petition is filed.
As far as locus of the petitioners to file subsequent petition is concerned,
aforesaid aspect was dealt by this Court in the case of aforesaid Writ Petition
No.18387/2020 (supra) wherein it was held that the petitioner has no locus to file
the petition again. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in
Writ Appeal No.64/2021 (supra).
I n view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the
petitioner is having no locus to file the present petition.
Accordingly, this petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
irfan
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.02.23 16:56:21 IST
