Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3136 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHYAM SINGH S/O SHRI BHOLARAM, AGED ABOUT 33
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: PANCH WARD NO 8 GRAM
PANCHAYAT ANDORI TEHSIL GOHAD DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.S. RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER CHAMBAL DIVISION, MORENA
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT
BHIND BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE JANPAD
PANCHAYAT GOHAD, BHIND BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SMT RACHNA W/O SHRI PARMAL SINGH
OCCUPATION: EX SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT
ANDORI, JANPAD PANCHAYAT GOHAD, BHIND
R/O MANOHARPURA, GRAM PANCHAYAT
ANDORI, JANPAD PANCHAYAT GOHAD, BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5-STATE AND SHRI R.B.S. TOMAR - ADVOCATE &
SHRI S.S. RAWAT - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)
2
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred against the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by respondent
No.2/Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, whereby in one of the appeals
preferred by the respondent No.6 against the order dated 28.07.2023, wherein
respondent No.6 was held to be disqualified for contesting the election for
Sarpanch on the ground of certain recoveries initiated against her under Section
92 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam for illegally withdrawing/defalcating
certain amount of money towards constructions, which were never raised.
2. The said enquiry under Section 89 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam was
conducted against the petitioner in pursuance to the complaint made by the
present petitioner and on the basis of complaint itself the respondent No.6 was
held to be guilty and order of recovery under Section 92 of M.P. Panchayat Raj
Adhiniyam was passed.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 while placing
reliance in the matter of M.P. Karmchari Congress Vs. The State of M.P. &
others passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.64/2021 on
10.02.2021 and in the matter of Bombay Inteligence Security India Ltd. Vs.
State of M.P. reported in (2022)1 MPLJ 534 contended that since the
petitioner was a complainant, at the most he could lead his evidence as a
witness, but he cannot claim position of an adversarial litigant and since the
capacity of petitioner does not come within the definition of person aggrieved,
therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. To bolster his submissions,
he has further placed reliance in the matter of Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported (2013) 4 SCC 465 and in the
matter of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector; Raigad & Ors.
(2012) 4 SCC 407.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner though had tried to assail the said
order on merits but he candidly admits that his capacity is only that of a
complainant.
5. In the light of aforesaid factual matrix and the legal position as is
sculled out from the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that since capacity of
the petitioner is only that of a complainant at the most he could lead evidence as
a witness but cannot act or claim the position of an adversarial litigant, the
petition, therefore, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
NEET
U
OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b95
0e435ec09e066bc6b58cb947
c1474b7dc349a1cf27eaa2ce,
SHAS
postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39
E0EE500EAADE1E0B3B8565C
B3A7DC9F5CD048197DF0FF
HANK
3149AE58, cn=NEETU
SHASHANK
Date: 2024.02.13 18:24:23
-08'00'
