Babu Singh vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Challenging the order-dated 18.9.2012 passed by the prescribed competent authority namely Sub Divisional Officer, Sehore, District Jabalpur

referring the matter to the Collector u/s 85(1) of the MP Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as

''Adhiniyam of 1993''), petitioner has filed this writ petition. In pursuance to an advertisement issued on 27.10.2006 by Gram Panchayat Goura

Negai, Block Janpad Panchayat Majhouli, District Jabalpur, petitioner and respondent No. 5 applied for appointment as Panchayat Karmi.

Petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in question and, therefore, it is his case that before submitting his application, he

resigned from the post of Sarpanch, the resignation was accepted by the Gram Panchayat in its Meeting held on 27.10.2006 - Annexure P/1, and

thereafter he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi.

Appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Karmi has been challenged by respondent No. 5 and even though various proceedings had taken place

before the Sub Divisional Officer and before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2023/2007, now by the impugned order the Sub Divisional Officer

exercising his powers of an authorized officer u/s 85 of the Adhiniyam of 1993, has directed for suspension of the resolution and referred the

matter to the Collector. The matter is pending before the Collector and petitioner without approaching the Collector and filing any objection in the

proceedings pending before the Collector u/s 85 or challenging the order passed by the Sub Division Officer by filing further revision or appeal

before the Collector or the Commissioner in accordance to the provisions of MP Panchayat Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995, has directly filed

this writ petition.

Even though Shri S.R. Tamrakar, Learned Counsel, tried to emphasize that before submitting his application and participating in the process of

selection, petitioner had resigned from the post of Sarpanch and the Sub Divisional Officer without summoning the relevant records has passed the

impugned order, Shri S.S. Bisen submits that the Sub Divisional Officer has only referred the matter to the Collector for confirmation u/s 85(1) and

as the petitioner can always approach the Collector and seek for indulgence of the Collector by raising objection in the proceedings pending u/s 85

or by filing an appeal or revision under the statutory rules, it is submitted by Shri Bisen that at this stage no interference be made.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 - Shri Paresh Pareek, on the basis of caveat filed, also submits that as the petitioner has

statutory remedy under the MP Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder, interference be not made in

these proceedings.

Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I see much force in the objection raised by Learned Counsel for the State and Shri Paresh

Pareek. The matter is already pending before the Collector and as the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the Collector and object to the

order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, I see no reason to interfere into the matter directly exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226

of the Constitution when efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner.

Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the said remedy, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.