Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pravin Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15875
1 WP-21180-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 26 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21180 of 2025
PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Raj - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.05.2025 [Annexure P/1]
passed by respondent No.3 whereby he has been placed under suspension.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari by the Collector by
order dated 20.07.2005. On account of a case having been registered against him,
the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Ujjain,
Division Ujjain, District Ujjain recommended for posting of the petitioner at some
other place. Thereafter, by order dated 21.05.2025 the petitioner has been
suspended by respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention to
the effect that respondent No.3 is not competent to suspend the petitioner. It is
only the Collector who is empowered in that behalf. The Collector is his
appointing as well as the Disciplinary Authority. The suspension order has
hence been passed by an incompetent Authority who had no jurisdiction. Reliance
has been placed by him upon the decision of this Court in Vinod Kumar Khare
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15875
2 WP-21180-2025
versus State of MP and others 2008 (4) M.P.L.J. 44 and order dated 23.09.2024
passed in W.P. No.26884 of 2024 [Smt. Anita Shrivastava versus State of Madhya
Pradesh and others].
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the petition and
has supported the impugned order and has submitted that it is not a fit case to
entertain this petition when alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. The
impugned order has rightly been passed. However, he could not dispute the legal
proposition as laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khare (Supra)
and Smt. Anita Shrivastava (Supra) .
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
6. It is now settled by the Apex Court in series of decisions that when an
order is passed without jurisdiction, the same can be challenged before the High
Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and in such cases, the
High Court should entertain the writ petition. The Apex Court in Whirlpool
Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks [AIR 1999 SC 22] , has held that the
jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected,
specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to
have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any
legal foundation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.3
is not the competent authority to issue the order of suspension against
the petitioner because the petitioner has been appointed by
respondent No.2/Collector, hence the order of suspension is beyond his
authority and jurisdiction.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15875
3 WP-21180-2025
8. Section 104 (2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides as under:-
"(2) The Collector shall appoint a patwari to each patwari halka and
a Nagar Sarvekshak to each sector for maintaining correct land
records and for such other duties as may be prescribed."
9. Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.C. Gupta vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. 2007 (1) MPWN 2 has held that as per Rule 7 and 9 of Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, suspension of Government servant
can be ordered only by appointing authority else it would be without jurisdiction.
10. It is noteworthy that after amendment in sub-section (2) of Section
104 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 and also in sub-clause (xix) of subsection
(2) of section 258 the Notification dated 9th October, 1959 shall have no
application in the present case. No other notification has been shown by which the
Sub-Divisional Officer has been empowered by the State Government to appoint a
Patwari and rightly so because the substantive Section of the Code i.e. Section
104(2) itself empowers the Collector to appoint Patwari. Thus, even though
the notification is issued by the State Government but that will not have the effect
of damaging the substantive section 104(2) which may run contrary to the
Notification.
11. Although learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
judgment of Division Bench in the case of Mangilal vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. reported in 1995 RN 67 in which it has been held that the powers
of appointment of Patwari delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, the
dismissal by the SDO cannot be said to be in violation of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India but later on Section 104 (2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code has
been amended and substituted by M.P. Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act,
2018 (No.23 of 2018). This judgment is not applicable in the instant matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15875
4 WP-21180-2025
12. Thus for the reasons as aforesaid this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 [Annexure P/1] passed by
respondent No.3 is beyond jurisdiction. Only the Collector has the power to
dismiss the Patwari as per provisions of Section 104 (2) of M.P. Land Revenue
Code, 1959. No other statutory provision has been pointed out by the counsel for
the respondent/State nor any other provision has been brought to the notice of this
Court to place the petitioner under suspension by respondent No.3.
13. As a result the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 [Annexure P/1]
passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. However, the respondents shall be
free to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.
14. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
