High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 08 MP CK 0008

Meeru vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 8 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 5582 of 2012 (S)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words

Sujoy Paul, J.—With the consent of Learned Counsel for parties, matter is finally heard. The grievance of petitioner is that he was served with a show-cause notice Annexure P/3 dated 15th May, 2012. The petitioner submits his reply Annexure P/4 dated 09/07/2012. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a separate application Annexure P/2 before the District Magistrate on 09/07/2012 and made a request that as per the principle of natural justice, the statement of certain persons be provided to him and he be permitted to cross examine those persons. By placing reliance on the notice Annexure P/1 Shri Prateep Visoriya, Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the said document have not been provided to the petitioner and no certified copy is supplied to him by the office of District Magistrate. The note appended below Annexure P/1 wherein it is stated that pursuant to the order of District Magistrate dated 24/07/2012 no certified copies can be given to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that as per Section 8 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, it is obligatory for the District Magistrate to conduct enquiry as per the principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel for petitioner further submits that the statements recorded behind the back of certain witnesses cannot be treated as gospel truth unless those persons are put to cross-examination by petitioner. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nyaju Niyaj Mohd. Vs. State of M.P.,

2.

Learned Deputy Government Advocate for State has not disputed the aforesaid legal position.

3.

Considering the aforesaid legal position I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with the following directions without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case:-

1.

The District Magistrate will permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are to be relied upon by the District Magistrate.

2.

The petitioner will at a liberty to lead his own evidence. The District Magistrate will complete the proceedings in accordance with law.

4.

With the aforesaid petition is disposed of. Certified copy today.