Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Munni Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1 WP-4233-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 6th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 4233 of 2024
SMT. MUNNI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Pal Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Sharma - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging order dated 15.01.2024 contained
in Annexure-P/2.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that Upper Collector Development and Chief Executive Officer of
Zila Panchayat, Anuppur has passed an order for recovery against
petitioners. It is submitted that Upper Collector had committed an
error of law in proceeding against the petitioners under Section 92
of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. It
is further submitted that amount of misappropriation ought to have
been determined by authority by giving an opportunity of hearing to
2 WP-4233-2024
petitioners. No opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioners
nor any enquiry was conducted and decision has been taken by
Upper Collector to recover an amount from petitioners and other
Office Bearers of the Panchayat. Order is without jurisdiction and
illegal.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has
relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in
WA No.951/2021 and WA No.949/2021 and submitted that law is
crystalized by order passed by High Court, therefore, any action
against the delinquent Office Bearers or accused is to be taken as
per said order.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. High Court in aforesaid cases held as under:-
"S.89 and 92 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993: An amount cannot be directly
recovered under Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj
Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam unless the same is
determined under Section 89 of the same. This is for the
reason that without determining the amount, if the notice
under Section 92 is served on a person, the amount cannot
be said to be due on the date of its recovery because it has
not been quantified, and unless it is quantified, it cannot
be said that it belongs to the Panchayat and thus, cannot
be recovered under s.92 of Adhiniyam. Indeed it is true
that under both the sections, viz., Section 89 and Section
92 of Adhiniyam, the amount due can be recovered as
land revenue but in such circumstances, when the amount
3 WP-4233-2024
is determined by the State, it has the discretion to recover
it either under Section 89 or Section 92 of the Ahiniyam.
Apparently, both the sections are overlapping and if the
State seeks any clarification that both of them are distinct
and different than the only course available to it is to
amend the provisions and bring some uniformity and
clarity in the enactment, i.e., the Adhiniyam."
6. Considering aforesaid circumstances, the procedure which
has been detailed in the order, has not been complied with and no
opportunity of hearing is provided to petitioners before passing of
order dated 15.01.2024, therefore, order dated 15.01.2024
(Annexure-P/2) is quashed.
7. Respondents authorities are at liberty to take action against
petitioners after complying with provisions of law as is detailed in
order dated 12.01.2022 passed in WA No.949/2021 and WA
No.951/2021.
8. With aforesaid, petition is disposed of.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
