[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Rajik vs Dilip Singh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16527
1 WP-3577-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3577 of 2007
MOHD. RAJIK
Versus
DILIP SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Singh Thakur - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Sanjeev Mishra - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
In the case in hand, the order dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed
by the Additional Collector, Seoni, is under challenge, by which the
Additional Collector has allowed the revision preferred by the respondent
No.1 and has quashed the order dated 25.10.2005 by which the petitioner
herein was appointed as Panchayat Karmi.
2. It is contended by the counsel that the matter stands in a narrow
compass inasmuch as the Additional Collector, Seoni, could not have
directly entertained a revision against the resolution of the Panchayat. It is
the contention of the counsel that a resolution was passed by the Gram
Panchayat for the appointment of Panchayat Karmi and the present petitioner
was appointed as such. The proceedings of the petitioner's appointment as
Panchayat Karmi, including resolution as well as order of the petitioner's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16527
2 WP-3577-2007
appointment, were assailed by filing a revision in terms of Section 91 of the
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993
(hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam of 1993" ) before the Additional
Collector, Seoni vide Annexure P/9. The Additional Collector, while
entertaining the said revision, has passed the impugned order dated
28.02.2007 contained in Annexure P/1 and has set aside the appointment
order of the petitioner, while issuing a direction remitting the matter back to
take steps as regard the consideration of 9 applications moved by the
candidates. It is contended by the counsel that in terms of Rule 3 of Madhya
Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to
a s "Rules of 1995" ), any order and proceedings of Gram Panchayat are
appealable before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the said remedy could not
have been bypassed. In the case in hand, a direct revision before the
Additional Collector was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, since
the order has been passed by an authority that was not competent to pass
such an order, in fact passed by an Appellate Authority who has exercised
the powers of the original authority, the impugned order is unsustainable.
3. Counsel for the respondent No.1, as well as counsel for the
respondent No.2, have opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned
order has been passed by the Additional Collector pursuant to a direction
issued vide order dated 26.05.2006 (Annexure R/2-7) passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. Therefore, no
interference is warranted.
4. Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the record reflects
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16527
3 WP-3577-2007
that in the case in hand, the appointment of the petitioner as well as the
resolution was questioned by the private respondent No.1 by filing a revision
under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 before the Additional Collector,
Seoni and the Additional Collector while entertaining the said revision has
passed the impugned order. The proceedings and the decision by the Gram
Panchayat in terms of Rule 3 are required to be assailed before Sub-
Divisional Officer. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 is reproduced as under:
"Rule - 3. Appeal and appellate authorities .-Save where
it has been otherwise provided in the Act or rules or
bye-laws made there under, an appeal shall lie,
(a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer under any provision of the Act or rules or bye
laws made there under to the Collector;
(b) in the case of an order passed by the Collector under
any provision of the Act or rules or bye laws made there
under to the Commissioner;
(c) in the case of an order passed by the Commissioner
or Director of Panchayats to the State Government;
(d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat
specified in Column (1) of the Table below to the
authority specified in the corresponding entry in
Column (2) thereto.
TABLE
(1) (2)
(a) Gram Panchayat Sub-Divisional Officer.
(b) Janpad Panchayat Collector.
(c) Zila Panchayat Commissioner.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly reflects that only an appeal against
the resolution/appointment order was maintainable before the Sub-Divisional
Officer and directly higher authority, i.e. Additional Collector, Seoni, could
not have been approached by the respondent No.1 by way of
revision. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that as the impugned
order has been passed by the authority in violation of statutory provisions
contained in Rules of 1995, the same is unsustainable.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16527
4 WP-3577-2007
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure P/1)
stands quashed.
7. The private respondent No.1 is extended liberty to approach the
Sub-Divisional Officer by way of an appeal assailing the resolution as well
as the appointment order of the petitioner. If the private respondent No.1
approaches the Sub-Divisional Officer within a period of 30 days from
today, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall take a decision on the appeal within a
further period of 90 days while extending opportunity of hearing to all
concerned, including the petitioner as well as respondent No.1.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
