Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Shuzabad Sabha Nai Sadak Lashkar ... vs Suresh Arora @ Vasudev on 4 October, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17564
1 WA-2041-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 2041 of 2024
SHRI SHUZABAD SABHA NAI SADAK LASHKAR GWALIOR
THROUGH ADHYAKSH MAHESH ARORA AND OTHERS
Versus
SURESH ARORA @ VASUDEV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raghvendra Dixit and Shri Utkarsh Bajpayi, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri V.K.Bharadwaj, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand V. Bharadwaj,
learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5.
Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.6 and
7/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been
preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2024 passed
by learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.29107/2023.
2. The appellants are taking exception to the order dated 27.08.2024
passed in W.P.No.29107/2023 whereby learned Writ Court issued certain
directions to conduct election under the supervision of Assistant Director Firms
and Society.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and raised the point
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17564
2 WA-2041-2024
that counsel appearing for the appellant in learned Writ Court swed by the
proceedings in a manner that he gave undertaking to conduct election under the
supervision of some authority but that undertaking goes contrary to the law
because, under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran
Adhiniyam, 1973, no such supervisory power exists on its own. He relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Elementary
Education Odisha & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo, 2019 (10) SCC 674 as well
a s Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar,
(2015) 11 SCC 628 to bring home to the legal position estoppel against the law is
not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Maheshwari and Ors. Vs.
Awadh Singh Dhakre and Ors. 2015 (4) M.P.L.J. 468 and judgment passed by
Single Bench in the case of Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association Indore Vs.
B.S.Solanki and Ors. 2013 (4) M.P.L.J. 663 to submit that direction as given
require reconsideration.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted
that against the said order writ appeal is not appropriate remedy and raised
question of the maintainability of the appeal in view of the undertaking given by
the counsel for the appellant.
6. After considering the rival submissions, especially the fact that counsel
for the appellant raised the point regarding concession given by the counsel who
appeared in writ proceedings is to be tested on the anvil of statute available.
Therefore, appropriate remedy available to the appellant appears to be to file a
review application so that the exact nature of proceedings undertaken before the
learned writ Court, can be ascertained by the same court in a better perspective.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17564
3 WA-2041-2024
7. Considering the submissions as well as the fact of the case this writ
appeal is disposed of giving liberty to the appellants to pursue remedy of review
in accordance with law as prayed before the learned writ Court itself.
8. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ashish*
