[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Izhar Munsi on 5 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:85
1 WA-3470-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3470 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DR. IZHAR MUNSI
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri
Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
1. Heard on I.A. No. 10871/2025, which is an application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is barred by 90 days.
2. Keeping in view of the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A.
No. 10871/2025 is allowed and delay in filing the present appeal is hereby
condoned.
3. The present writ appeal is filed filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya
Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
being aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2025 whereby the writ petition
filed by the respondent has been allowed and the appellant has been directed
to continue the writ petitioner in service upto the age of 65 years alongwith
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:85
2 WA-3470-2025
all consequential benefits.
4. Counsel for the appellant argued that learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition on the basis of judgment passed by the Division
Bench in the case of Dr. Kantilal Sahu and Another Vs. State of M.P. &
Another in W.P. No. 5237/2012. He argued that the aforesaid judgment
would not apply to the facts of the present case. He argued that the petitioner
who was initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer in the year 1996
and worked up to 2006 for about 10 years and thereafter, he had gone on
leave but did not report back till 2022. The writ petitioner was also punished
with an order of dies non and therefore, the facts of the case of the present
writ petitioner is different from the facts of the case of Dr. Kantilal Sahu
(supra).
5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner argued that the
order is passed only with the consent of the counsel for the State who did not
oppose the contention that the matter was covered by the judgment passed by
the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Kantilal Sahu (supra) .
6. Counsel for the State argued that the concession on the law given by
the Government Advocate would not be operated as an estoppel for
challenging the order. He argued that the law is well settled that any
concession made by any counsel on any legal point does not operate as an
estoppel. In this regard, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Director of Elementary Education Odisha &
Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo, Civil Appeal No. 7577/2019 arising out of
SLP (Civil) No. 23279/2019 decided on 26.09.2019 relying on the judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:85
3 WA-3470-2025
passed by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension
Vs. State of M.P. and Another, (2004) Vol. 4 SCC 646 and also in the case
of Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh, 2015
7 SCC 373.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the facts
of the present case are different from the facts of the case Dr. Kantilal Sahu
(supra) and since the learned Single Judge has not decided the case on merit
after considering the facts of the present case, therefore, we deem it
necessary to set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and to remand the
matter to the learned Single Judge to decide case on merit afresh in
accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid, the writ appeal is allowed and disposed of.
9. Registry is directed to restore the W.P. No. 14936/2025 to its
original number and list the same in the week commencing 27.01.2026.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vindesh
