[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kirodi Lal Meena vs Dandraua Sarkar Public Trust on 16 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
1 Writ Appeal No.163/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
WRIT APPEAL No. 163/2026
KIRODI LAL MEENA
Versus
DANDRAUA SARKAR PUBLIC TRUST AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh - Senior Advocate/Advocate General with Shri Vivek Khedkar -
Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General and Shri S.S.Kushwah - Government
Advocate for the appellant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 16th day of January 2026)
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 2 (1) of The
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dt.10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in MCC No.2445/2025, whereby contempt proceedings have been
drawn against the appellant, who happened to be the Collector Bhind at the
relevant point of time.
2. At the out set, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that
subject matter was in fact an application vide MCC No.2445/2025 for
restoration of one Misc. Petition (M.P.No.857/2021), in which learned Single
Judge has drawn proceeding of contempt against the Collector Bhind -
K.L.Meena (present appellant) exercising the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India available to the Court. Therefore, Writ Appeal is
maintainable.
3. Learned senior counsel relied upon the order dt.31.12.2020 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1053/2020 (Shailendra Singh
Kushwah Vs. State of M.P.) in support of his submissions. He also relied
upon the order dt.16.11.2021 passed in W.A.No.990/2021 (State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Jaipal Singh), whereby Division Bench of this Court referred
the matter to larger Bench to answer the reference in respect of
maintainability of appeal arising from an order other than the order passed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While referring the matter,
interim relief was also granted. Reference before larger Bench is pending
consideration.
4. Learned Senior counsel also referred the Division Bench order
dt.08.02.2022 passed in W.A.No.97/2022 (Smt. Harsha Singh Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and others). He also referred the order
dt.20.02.2025 passed by the Division Bench of Principal Seat at Jabalpur in
W.A.No.332/2025 (The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Avijit
Sharma and others), whereby interim order has been passed against the
observations made by learned Single Judge vide order dt.17.01.2025 in
W.P.No.28981/2024 (Avijit Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
others). Therefore, according to senior counsel, writ appeal is maintainable.
5. Considering the submissions, fact situation and different orders passed
by the Division Benches of this Court from time to time, this Court finds the
case prima facie maintainable because learned Single Judge purportedly
exercised the power under Article 226 read with Article 215 of the
Constitution of India and provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 while
hearing the restoration application preferred by the State and in that case,
contempt proceedings are directed to be initiated.
6. Precisely stated, facts of the case are as under :-
Following list of dates and events, as provided by the appellant, is
important for consideration of facts of this case :-
DATE EVENTS
24.07.2007 Office of the Tahsildar District Bhind in case No.01/2006-
07/A61 granted lease to the respondent for the purpose of
plantation and in total 46 khasra numbers / survey numbers
a total rakba of 55.43 hectares of land was given for
specific purpose of plantation.
Against the aforesaid order of allotment of land, an appeal
was preferred by Mr. Sarnam S/o Hardayal before the Court
of Sub Divisional Officer, Mehgaon, which was registered
as case No.41/2006-07.
07/09/07 SDO Mehgaon partly allowed the appeal.
A complaint was made to the office of Collector, Bhind,
which was registered as case No.09/2010-11/suo motu.
25.04.2011 Vide order the Collector, Bhind cancelled the order
dt.24.07.2007 passed by Tahsildar, Mehgaon, District
Bhind.
Against the order dt.25.04.2011, an appeal was preferred by
the respondent Trust before the Commissioner, Chambal
Division, which was registered as Case No.148/2010-
11/suo motu,
15.06.2011 Commissioner, Chambal Division dismissed the appeal
affirming the order passed by the Collector Bhind.
Against the aforesaid order dt.15.06.2011, respondent Trust
filed revision before the Board of Revenue, which was
registered as Case No.1107-2/2011.
15.01.2015 Board of Revenue vide order reversed the orders passed by
the Collector Bhind and Commissioner, Chambal Division
and maintained the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Mehgaon.
State of M.P. challenged the aforesaid order dt.15.01.2015
by filing M.P.No.857/2021 before this Court.
22.11.2023 In MP No.857/2021 learned Single Judge directed the State
Government to explain what action has been taken against
the officer in error, who granted lease in favour of the
respondent.
13.02.2024 Notices were issued in the aforesaid M.P. No.857/2021.
29.05.2024 Since process fee was not paid, therefore, again case was
listed under Common Conditional Orders and conditional
order was passed for payment of process fee.
Due to non compliance of Common Conditional Order
dt.29.05.2024, M.P. No.857/2021 was dismissed.
State of M.P. filed MCC No.2445/2025 for restoration of
M.P.No.857/2021.
07/11/25 Learned Single Judge directed the District Magistrate,
Bhind to remain personally present on 10.11.2025 to
explain as to what transpired after the notices were given to
SDM and Tahsildar as well as to explain as to why no
process fee was paid in compliance of court order.
10/11/25 Collector Bhind remained present before the Court. The
court issued directions to the Commissioner, Chambal
Division, Morena to join the Court proceedings through
Video Conferencing on 11.11.2025 and explain as to why
he has not taken a final decision on the recommendation
written by District Magistrate in spite of the fact that
approximately 07 months have expired. SDO, Mehgaon,
District Bhind was also directed to join the court
proceedings through video conferencing to explain as to
why he took 09 months to give a prima facie opinion about
the entry which was made in the computer.
11/11/25 In- charge Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and
SDO Mehgaon, District Bhind joined the court proceedings
through video conferencing. Case was adjourned for
17.11.2025 and Collector Bhind was directed to remain
present through video conferencing to explain as to why he
made serious allegations against Commissioner, Chambal
Division, Morena specifically when the matter was sent
back by the Office of Commissioner, Chambal Division,
Morena twice.
17.11.2025 Learned Single Judge issued directions to the Chief
Secretary and Commissioner, Chambal Division to explain
as to whether they are happy with their subordinate officers
who have no hesitation in scandalizing the office of seniors.
It is made clear that in case if Chief Secretary, State of M.P.
and Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena are happy
with the conduct of Shri Meena, then the Court will not
draw any proceeding for contempt of Court.
10/12/25 When the case was taken up, Govt.Advocate submitted that
Chief Secretary has conducted an enquiry and has found
that the conduct of the Collector, Bhind was not in
conformity with the standards required in official
submissions before the High Court and GAD has been
directed to issue an administrative warning to the officer.
Thereafter, the Court vide impugned order show caused the
appellant for making false statement.
7. It is the submission of Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant through video conferencing that learned Single
Judge was hearing the matter for restoration of M.P.No.857/2021 and that had
to be decided on the basis of merits involved into it. However, learned Single
Judge exceeded the jurisdiction and held Collector District Bhind -
K.L.Meena (present appellant) as guilty of contempt and initiated proceeding
against him.
8. Earlier, Chief Secretary was directed to take note of the situation and
given the task of conducting enquiry, thereafter Chief Secretary conducted
enquiry and found conduct of appellant liable for Administrative Warning,
thus complied the earlier orders passed by the said Court. Orders of Court
were duly complied with by different authorities including Chief Secretary
from time to time. However, learned Single Judge has drawn proceeding of
contempt against the Collector Bhind - K.L.Meena (present appellant)
ignoring the fact situation that he already suffered at the hands of Chief
Secretary. Even if any further enquiry or further direction is required to be
given, that can be done by learned Single Judge, but instead of that, contempt
proceeding is drawn which is harsh over the appellant.
9. Notice was issued in M.P.No.857/2001 vide order dt.13.02.2024 when
authorities disclosed that District Magistrate Bhind shall enquire the matter
and pass an appropriate order within three months in respect of negligence
done by officer-in-error. However, due to change of guards, some
communication gap ensued, which resulted into situation where contempt was
initiated. Appellant extends unconditional apology and undertakes to be
cautious in future and would abide by all the directions as issued by the
Court/Single Judge from time to time. Since no notice was issued to the other
side and prior to it, M.P.No.857/2021 got dismissed, therefore, no prejudice
would be caused to the other side if matter is heard finally on admission stage.
Therefore, learned senior counsel prayed for hearing the matter accordingly.
10. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at length and perused the
documents/record appended thereto.
11. This is the case having chequered history. Litigation lacked
promptitude by officers of State Government despite valuable Govt. land is
involved, therefore, compelled by circumstances, learned Single Judge passed
the impugned order dt.10.12.2025. However, a bit course of correction
appears to be prime requisite because in penultimate paragraph of impugned
order, learned Single Judge found Collector Bhind - K.L.Meena guilty of not
maintaining the standard as required in official submissions to the High Court.
Post appearance for contempt proceedings would affect the prospects of
appellant because said observation has the trappings of View Formation.
12. Therefore, initiation of contempt proceeding coupled with formation of
view (even prima facie), may affect the proceeding of contempt. Besides that,
Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant
raised the issue regarding scope of MCC, that is also required to be addressed
if proceedings were to continue. Sufficiency of cause in application for
restoration is to be seen. Another question cropped up is regarding
sufficiency/insufficiency of action taken by Chief Secretary qua appellant.
Since learned Single Judge already posed certain questions before the Govt.
Advocate including status of such administrative warning, therefore, those
questions deserve to be addressed first.
13. Another aspect deserves consideration is the unconditional apology
tried to be tendered by the appellant. If appellant tenders unconditional
apology regarding alleged communication gap/inadvertence, then its impact
thereon is to be seen. Circumstances under which this situation arose deserve
dissection so that it may not occur in future. All these issues may be addressed
for consideration before learned Single Judge, if advised so or if addressed so.
14. Therefore, in cumulative analysis while maintaining order
dt.10.12.2025, only last paragraph, so far as initiation of contempt proceeding
against the appellant is concerned, stands deleted. Appellant is relegated back
in the proceeding to make submissions as per law showing his innocence, if
any, and if required, to show the exact nature of Administrative Warning.
Appellant to appear before the learned Single Judge on 19.01.2026 and take
directions for further course of appearance.
15. With the aforesaid deletion in the impugned order dt.10.12.2025 in
MCC No.2445/2025, present Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
