Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anju Swa Sahayata Samooh Khutaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28916
1 WP-22076-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 22076 of 2025
ANJU SWA SAHAYATA SAMOOH KHUTAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Kumar Choubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
In compliance of order dated 01/07/2025, respondents No.4 to 6 namely
Shri B.P. Pandey, Sub Divisional Officer Mauganj, Shri Ram Kushal Mishra,
CEO Janpad Panchayat Mauganj and Shri Shiv Kumar Rajak, BRCC Mauganj are
present before this Court.
2. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order dated 12/06/2025 (Annexure-P/10) passed by Three Member
Committee / respondents No.4, 5 & 6 pointing out the fact that in compliance of
order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation i.e. order dated 12/03/2025
passed in W.P. No.35609/2024, wherein this Court has quashed the order dated
03/10/2024 and the matter was remitted back to Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
to comply with the requirements of the circular Annexure-P/10 in earlier round of
litigation and an enquiry be conducted by a three members committee as
contemplated under the circular and then a fresh decision be taken within a period
of thirty days.
3. However, the impugned order dated 12/06/2025, Annexure-P/10 herein
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28916
2 WP-22076-2025
does not reflect the compliance of order passed by this Court as the same is a non-
speaking order. Therefore, this Court on 01/07/2025 directed the personal
presence of respondents No.4 to 6 before this Court to explain the same on
affidavit.
4. Respondents No.4 to 6 have filed their affidavits before this Court. It is
contended by them that in compliance of earlier order passed by this Court on
12/03/2025, they have duly conducted a proper enquiry by affording proper
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Samooh. However, it is submitted that due
to an inadvertent mistake, speaking order was not passed. They deeply regret for
the said non-compliance and tender their unconditional and unqualified apology
before this Court. It is further contended that the direction contained in order
dated 12/03/2025 was complied with in letter and spirit and the process for
constitution of the Committee and conduct of enquiry has already been complied
with.
5. The contentions made in the affidavit are self-contradictory as in para 3 of
the affidavits, it is mentioned that "the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court
could not be complied with in letter and spirit, whereas in para 6 it is mentioned
that the order dated 12/03/2025 was complied with in letter and spirit. Along with
affidavits, certain documents have been produced but all these documents are prior
to passing of order dated 12/03/2025 by this Court. Fresh enquiry report done by
three members Committee is not produced before this Court along with affidavits.
6. However, during the course of arguments, they have produced document
Annexure-D/1 along with the affidavit pointing out to be the fresh enquiry report
in compliance of order dated 12/03/2025 passed in W.P. No.35609/2024, as
mentioned in para 4 of affidavit. However, when the document Annexure-D/1 is
seen, it is clear that it is a report showing the factual position with respect to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28916
3 WP-22076-2025
Appeal filed before the Collector, District Rewa and a letter written by the
Principal to Collector, Rewa pointing out the same along with relevant
documents. The same cannot be said to be a report submitted by three members
Committee in terms of direction issued by this Court on 12/03/2025. On
specifically asking regarding the report of three members Committee, they have
produced a document i.e. order dated 12/06/2025 accompanied by the report of
three members Committee.
7. However, after going through the contents of the report, it is seen that there
is no subsequent order for constitution of Committee. The Committee was already
formed on earlier occasion consisting of Block Resource Center Coordinator,
Janpad Shiksha Kendra Mauganj, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat
Mauganj and Sub Divisional Officer (R), Mauganj. In the report given by the
Committee, no date is mentioned, neither below the signatures nor on the report.
8. After going through the entire report, it is seen that all the proceedings
which were drawn on earlier occasion which were subject matter of challenge in
W.P. No.35609/2024 were taken into consideration by the Committee. All the
documents which are considered are prior to 12/03/2025. In the concluding
paragraph of the report, it is observed as under:-
"13. यह क कायालय अनु वभागीय अिधकार (रा.) (अ य )
अनुभाग मऊगंज जला मऊगंज के प
मांक/1498/र डर/अनु;अिध;/2024 मऊगंज, दनांक
28.08.2024 को अ य अंजू व सहायता समूह खुटहा को
दनांक 09.09.2024 को सुनवाई का अवसर दान कया गया,
क तु अ य अंजू व सहायता समूह खुटहा गौर ारा
संतोषजनक त या मक जवाब तुत नह ं कया गया। अत:
अनु वभागीय अिधकार अनुभाग (रा.) (अ य ) मऊगंज जला
मऊगंज ने उपरो त य को दे खते हुए पाया क उ समूह को
व ालय के पी.एम. पोषण वतरण के दािय व से पृथक कए
जाने क कायवाह कर।"
9. In the concluding paragraph of the report, it is pointed out that on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28916
4 WP-22076-2025
28/08/2024, the President of petitioner society was directed to remain present on
09/09/2024 for personal hearing and after providing an opportunity of hearing to
her, conclusion has been drawn by the Committee.
10. This goes to show that no fresh enquiry was conducted by the Committee
in pursuance to the order passed by the Court on 12/03/2025 because the contents
of the enquiry report shows that the last opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner Samooh on 09/09/2024 when she was called to appear before the
Committee.
11. Thus, it is clear that an attempt has been made to misguide the Court by
placing wrong affidavits as well as previous Committee report. The Authorities
have passed the order impugned based upon the earlier Committee report.
Respondents No.4, 5 & 6 who are present before this Court have submitted that
they have complied with the directions issued by the Court in earlier round of
litigation and have passed the impugned order, however no material is placed on
record to show that a three member Committee was constituted in compliance of
order passed by this Court who has enquired into the matter afresh and after
granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, order impugned has been passed.
Despite marking their presence before this Court to explain the same, they have
made an attempt to misguide the Court by placing earlier report. First of all, they
have not filed the said report along with the affidavit and have show the document
D/1 as report submitted by the Committee. The submission made by them in the
affidavits was found to be factually incorrect as D/1 was not the enquiry report.
Secondly, they have produced the enquiry report in the open Court before this
Court is also found to be earlier enquiry report.
12. Under these circumstances, the very conduct of respondents No.4, 5 & 6
clearly falls under the definition of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as defined under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28916
5 WP-22076-2025
Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(iii) of the Act. The same reads as under:-
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(a) xxx
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a
court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which-
(i) xxx
(ii) xxx
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or
obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration
of justice in any other manner."
13. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct for
initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents No.4, 5 & 6 namely, Shri
B.P. Pandey, Sub Divisional Officer Mauganj, Shri Ram Kushal Mishra, CEO
Janpad Panchayat Mauganj and Shri Shiv Kumar Rajak, BRCC Mauganj.
14. Accordingly, Registry is directed to initiate separate contempt proceedings
against respondents No.4 to 6 in this petition namely Shri B.P. Pandey, Sub
Divisional Officer Mauganj, Shri Ram Kushal Mishra, CEO Janpad Panchayat
Mauganj and Shri Shiv Kumar Rajak, BRCC Mauganj for deliberate attempt to
mislead the Court.
15. As far as present case is concerned, learned State counsel submits that as
respondents No.4, 5 & 6 will be dealt with in contempt proceedings coupled with
the fact that order impugned is not in consonance with order passed in earlier
round of litigation, therefore, the impugned order be quashed and the matter be
relegated to the Authorities to re-consider and pass a fresh order.
16. The prayer appears to be reasonable.
17. Under these circumstances, as the order passed by the Court dated
12/03/2025 in W.P. No.35609 of 2024 is not complied with as admitted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28916
6 WP-22076-2025
State counsel, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is sent back to the
Collector Mauganj, District Mauganj to look into the same and get the order dated
12/03/2025 passed in W.P. No.35609/2024 complied with in letter and spirit after
constituting a fresh three members Committee in terms of the circular wherein
respondents No.4, 5 & 6 should not be a member.
18. Registry is directed that the Contempt Petition be registered and the record
of this Writ Petition be kept with the Contempt Petition.
19. With aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of . No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
