Vinod Meena And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The present petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against any specific order but it is preferred being aggrieved by the arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal action on the part of Naib Tehsildar, Circle - 1, Manpur, Tehsil Sheopur, District Sheopur whereby despite directions having been issued by respondent No.2/Collector vide order dated 18.03.2024 to decide the petitioner's objection on the maintainability of the proceedings of case No.05/2023/24A-70, learned Naib Tahsildar is not bothering to obey the direction and is adamant to proceed further in the matter.

The aforesaid fact has been assailed on the ground that respondent No.2/Collector vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed in case No. 142/B-121/2023-24 had directed respondent no.3 to decide the petitioner's objection first in accordance with law and then decide the matter, therefore, respondent No.3 was under a legal obligation and is duty bound to decide the question of maintainability first and despite the said directions, respondent No.3 is proceeding with the matter and is not deciding the objections.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 18.03.2024, the respondent No.2/Collector in specific terms had directed respondent no.3 to decide the objections preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law but instead of deciding the objection at the first instance, respondent No.3 is proceeding with the matter which is dehors the directions issued by the Collector. Thus, suitable directions are required to be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's objection first which is with regard to maintainability of the proceedings of case No.05/2023-24/A-70.

On the contrary, learned Government Advocate submits that from perusal of order dated 18.03.2024, it is evident that no such directions have been issued by the Collector that the objections preferred by the petitioner are to be entertained first and only thereafter, if it is found that the proceedings are maintainable, then the Tehsildar shall proceed with the matter. It is further submitted that in the concluding para, the Collector has only observed that the objection preferred by the petitioner should be decided in accordance with law and as and when the parties would appear before the Tehsildar, the said objections preferred by the petitioner shall be considered and decided on their own merits and thus, no directions are required to be issued to the Tehsildar for deciding the said objections at the first instance.

After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the Collector vide order dated 18.03.2024 had not directed the Tehsildar to first decide the objections preferred by the petitioner and only if the proceedings are found to be maintainable, that the matter shall be proceeded. The directions which have been issued are that the objections preferred by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law and the parties were directed to remain present within 15 days before Naib Tehsildar, Circle -1, Manpur, Tehsil Sheopur, District Sheopur. Since the direction to decide the objections preferred by the present petitioner in accordance with law has already been issued by the Collector, no further direction is required to be issued to respondent No.3 in regard to decide the objections preferred by the petitioner first before proceeding with the matter.

Accordingly, the present petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.