[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Chourasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14967
1 RP-2339-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 2339 of 2025
SANTOSH CHOURASIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Lala, Advocate for the Review Petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State.
Shri Chiranjeev Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.5.
ORDER
Petitioner's contention is that this Review Petition is filed being
aggrieved of the order dated 29.08.2023, passed in Writ Petition
No.26580/2019 and other connected matters.
It is submitted that this Court had observed that those persons who
were working as Administrator of Seva Sahkari Samiti shall continue till
elections are completed.
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner
submitted that in fact the respondent No.5-Mansingh Sanodiya was not
entitled to any interim protection, inasmuch as, he was already elected to
Janpad Panchayat as a member on the date when this petition was heard
and decided. He was duty bound to disclose this fact before the High
Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14967
2 RP-2339-2025
Shri Chiranjeev Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5,
in his turn, submitted that in Writ Petition No.44750/2025, vide order
dated 24.11.2025, an interim order was passed by a Coordinate Bench
and it observed as under :-
"Counsel appearing for the State had made an attempt
to justify the removal of the petitioner on the ground that he is
a member of Janpad Panchayat, therefore, by virtue of
statutory provisions contained under Section 48-A, Sub-
Section (4)(a) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, he
cannot hold the post at the same time.
It is further pointed out that this is a subsequent
development which was not pointed out to the Court at the
time when the writ petition was disposed off. If the subsequent
development is not brought to the knowledge of the Court in
the earlier round of litigation, then the remedy available to the
respondents was to seek a review of the order passed in the
earlier round of litigation. Once there is an order granting
interim relief in favour of the petitioner then the respondents
are duty bound to comply with the said orders. They cannot
take a somersault and say that the earlier subsequent
development was not brought to the notice of the Court,
therefore, they have removed the petitioner. The act of the
respondents is clearly a violation of the directions given by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14967
3 RP-2339-2025
Court in the earlier round of litigation.
Under these circumstances, the effect and operation of
the orders impugned dated 06.11.2025 and 10.11.2025 shall
remain stayed till the next date of hearing."
Therefore, it is submitted that no indulgence be shown in the
matter of review and further that respondent Mansingh Sanodiya is
willing and aggreeable to resign.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, one thing which is
most glaring and goes to the root of the problem needs to be addressed
that whether can be any interim orders dehors the statutory provisions,
that is whether statutory provisions will have supremacy, or the interim
orders passed oblivious of the statutory provisions will have supremacy?
When we go into the root of this issue, then we find that Section
48-A(4)(a) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act' of 1960 for short), provides as under :-
"Sec.48-A(4)(a) : No person shall be eligible to be
elected a president or Chairman or Vice-President or vice-
Chairman of a society, if he is elected to any post in District
Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, Urban Local
Bodies, Mandi Board or Mandi Committee;
Provided that if any person holds office of President or
Chairman or Vice-President or Vice-Chairman of a society
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14967
4 RP-2339-2025
and is elected to any post in District Panchayat, Janpad
Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, Urban Local Bodies, Mandi
Board or Mandi Committee, then the president or Chairman or
Vice-President or Vice-Chairman of the society shall cease to
function as such from such date he is declared elected and the
post shall automatically become vacant from the aforesaid
date."
Thus, it is evident that the proviso saves only those offices which
were occupied prior to such election to any Panchayat and not one
which are obtained subsequent to the election to the Panchayat.
When this aspect is taken into consideration, then it is evident that
respondent No.5 Shri Mansingh Sanodiya, got elected to Janpad
Panchayat on 15.07.2022, whereas interim order was passed on
29.08.2023 after such election where such facts of election to Janpad
Panchayat were not disclosed.
In view of such facts, this Court is of the opinion that in light of
statutory provisions contained in Section 48-A (4)(a) of the Act of 1960,
respondent Shri Sanodiya, is not entitled to continue as Administrator by
virtue of his capacity as elected president or Chairman or Vice-
Chairman of a society.
In view of the aforesaid, the Review Petition is allowed.
As far as respondent No.5-Shri Mansingh Sanodiya, is concerned,
impugned order stands modified and it is directed that Shri Mansingh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14967
5 RP-2339-2025
Sanodiya, by virtue of the provisions in Section 48-A (4)(a) of the Act of
1960, is not entitled to any interim protection, which has been extended
to others.
In above terms, Review Petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
