Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Dhanti Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 1695 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. DHANTI BAI W/O SHRI RAMESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, SARPANCH, GRAM
PANCHAYAT NIRAWALI GHATIGAON (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SABIR HUSSAIN S/O BARKAT HUSSAIN, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, GRAM PANCHAYAT KULETHA
GHATIGAON (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ARVIND DUDAWAT - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
ANSHUMAN DUDAWAT -ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA
PANCHAYAT GWALIOR AND PRESCRIBED
AUTHORITY GWALIOR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT GHATIGAON GWALIOR
MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANKUR MODY - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
2
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 AND SHRI A.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
............................................................................................................
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in relegating the writ petitioners to file a revision against the
impugned order, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. The case of the petitioners herein is that the respondent No.2-Chief
Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Gwalior-cum-Prescribed Authority in
exercise of its powers under Section 92(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat
Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam")
sought to make recovery of an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- from the writ
petitioners. It was found that the amount earmarked for installation of solar
plant was used for the purposes of establishing the solar lights. Questioning
the said order, the instant writ petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge came to the view that the order is revisable
under Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision)
Rules 1995 (for short "the 1995 Rules") and hence relegated the petitioners
in view of the availability of an alternative, efficacious, statutory remedy of
the revision.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants places reliance on
the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P.
and others Vs. Ku. Preeti Patidar and others, reported in 2022 1 RN 101
wherein it was held that no amount could be directly recovered under
Section 92 of the Adhiniyam unless the same is determined under section 89
of the same. In the instant case there is no such determination, therefore, the
exercise of powers under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam is erroneous.
5. The same is disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondents on the ground that it is not a case of recovery simplicitor. In
terms of para 6 of the impugned order in writ petition it has been noted that
the funds were allocated for the purposes of establishing a solar plant.
However, what was established was solar lights. The same is disputed by the
learned counsel for the writ petitioners on the ground that in terms of
Annexure P/2 what was allocated to them was establishing of solar lights
and solar plant. Therefore, the order is incorrect.
6. However, on considering the contentions, we are of the considered
view that the judgment rendered by this Court would not have a bearing on
this case. The said case is with reference to the recovery made under Section
92 of the Adhiniyam on the grounds specified therein. However, herein the
specific case of the respondents is that the funds have been diverted and used
for another purpose for which it was not authorized. Therefore, this question
necessarily has to be decided by the concerned authority under the
Adhiniyam. It is for this reason, the revision has been provided. Therefore,
we are of the considered view that the dispute as to whether the funds have
been allotted for the purpose of establishing the solar lights or the solar plant
is a question of fact that can be determined only by the revisional authority.
7. Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. The writ
petitioners/appellants are granted liberty to file a revision has held by the
learned Single Judge. The interim order granted by this Court is extended by
a further period of eight weeks to enable the appellants to file a revision in
accordance with law.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (ANAND PATHAK)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
msp
MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
2022.10.14 11:06:56 +05'30'
