Sanjay Patil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 930 MP

                                                     1
                          IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                          ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                         WRIT PETITION No. 17903 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SANJAY PATIL S/O SHRI HARI PATIL, AGED ABOUT 48
                         YEARS, WARD NO. 5 TEHSIL NEPANAGAR DISTRICT
                         BURHANPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI SANDEEP KUAMR SEN - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
                               DEVELOPMENT      DEPARTMENT     VALLABH
                               BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    COMMISSIONER DIVISION INDORE DISTRICT
                               INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    ASSISTANT    COMMISSIONER       TRIBAL
                               DEPARTMENT DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         4.    COLLECTOR           BURHANPUR DISTRICT
                               BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND JILA
                               PARIYOJNA  SANCHALAK   SARV  SHIKSHA
                               ABHIYAN BURHANPUR DISTRICT BURHANPUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         6.    DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATOR DISTRICT
                               EDUCATION CENTRE SARV SHIKSHA ABHIYAN,
                               BURHANPUR, DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         7.    SMT. SARITA PATIL D/O BABURAO OCCUPATION:
                               ASSISTANT    TEACHER,    PRIMARY SCHOOL
                               REHMANPURA, TEHSIL NEPANAGAR, DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
                               BURHANPUR R/O E-TYPE, TEHSIL NEPANAGAR,
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
1/16/2023 6:09:55 PM
                                                     2
                               DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2&5 to take appropriate action against the respondent No.7 for obtaining appointment as Guruji on the basis of forged documents by registering FIR for the offence under Sections 464, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and also for taking action under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services ( Conduct) Rules, 1965 so as to withhold withdrawal of salary by the respondent No.7.

Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn submits that this writ petition is not maintainable. It is a blackmailing device. The Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir versus Collector, District Raigad & Others (2012) 4 SCC 440 has held that the complainant filing complaint against the abuse of Public Office having only a remote interest cannot seek to be a party on the ground of public interest. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, Shri Manas Mani Verma submits that the petitioner has no direct interest in the matter.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, when Shri Sandeep Kumar Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners is asked to show from record that under which of the Rules prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, there is a provision to

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

1/16/2023 6:09:55 PM

withhold withdrawal of salary by the respondent No.7, he is unable to demonstrate any such Rules. He submits that the increment can only be withheld and the provisions for withholding of increments are prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1966 and not under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

Thus, it is evident that as far as the second part of the first relief is concerned, that has been sought without understanding the import and obligation prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

As far as initiation of FIR is concerned, the petitioner has a remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as has been held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2008) 2 SCC 409 and that remedy too cannot be granted to the petitioner in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially taking into consideration the judgment of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir versus Collector, District Raigad & Others (supra).

Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

1/16/2023 6:09:55 PM