W.P. No. 3541/2010. Case: Ganesh Singh Rawat Vs State of M.P. & Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 3541/2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Samadhiya, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. S. K. Sharma and Mr. D. S. Raghuvanshi, Advocates |
| Judges | Sujoy Paul, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 20(1), 226; Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Sections 16(1)(a), 69 |
| Citation | 2012 (3) MPJR 157 |
| Judgement Date | June 25, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:
1. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the appointment order of respondent No. 6 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that admittedly the said respondent is real brother of the sitting sarpanch. The case of the petitioner is that as per Section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 ("Adhiniyam" for brevity), the private respondent is disqualified to hold the post of Panchayat Secreatry.
Shri Samadhiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meeting of Gram Panchayat various candidates were considered for the said post. The relevant marks which were obtained by the candidates which is reflected in the resolution dated 21.11.2004 reads as under:-
2. Shri Samadhiya submits that respondent No. 6's marks were less than the marks obtained by other candidates, yet he has been selected for the post of secretary. The learned counsel heavily placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2009 ILR MP 1607 (Lallu Kol Vs. State of M. P. & Others). It is not in dispute that this Division Bench order of this Court is affirmed by the Supreme Court. On the basis of this Court is affirmed by the Supreme Court. On the basis of this, petitioner submits that the selection of respondent No. 6 should be cancelled. The learned counsel further submits that by impugned order Annexure P-1 and P-2 the authority below has erroneously relied on the letter dated 19.1.1996 By Placing reliance on that document, it is submitted that it is not even executive instruction. The learned counsel further submits that this letter dated 19.1.1996 cannot be accepted because it runs contrary to he interpretation given by this Court in Lallu Kol (supra).
3. Per Contra, Shri S. K. Sharma and Shri D. S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that the petitioner is a busybody and has vengeance with respondent No. 6 and, therefore, this petition even if filed as quo-Warranto, cannot be entertained. It is the stand of respondent No. 6 that the law laid down by this Court in 1999 (2) J. L. J. 374 (Parhalad Singh Patel Vs. State of M. P. and others) will hold the field. To elaborate, Shri S. K. Sharma submits that at the time of selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 Prahalad Singh's Judgment (supra) was in vogue and the Division Bench Judgment of Lallu Kol (supra) does not have any retrospective effect. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 6 that earlier W. P. No. 2458/10 was filed by one candidate Veeru Gaur, who ultimately withdrew the said petition. It is submitted that once a contesting candidate has decided to withdraw the petition, the present petitioner who is a stranger and a busybody has no locus to challenge the said order.
4. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial