Back
2000 (1) JLJ 280
S.S. Jha, J.
Ram Lakhan Rawat v. State of M.P. and others
WP. No. 215 of 1997; Decided on 15.10.1999.
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- plain and ordinary meaning should be drawn -- words are to be interpreted from plain language. (1996) 10 SCC 42 followed. [ Para 7]
(3) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.)--S. 91 -- only one revision is maintainable -- Rules Famed under the Adhiniyam -- cannot be in excess of the powers conferred under the Adhiniyam. [Para 10]
(4) Words and Phrases -- word ‘order‘ -- means the order which affects the rights and liabilities of the parties. 1981 MPRCJ 21 relied on. [Pala 11 ]
(5) Rules -- provisions conflicting with the Act of Legislature -- Act shall prevail -- Rules are to be construed harmoniously with provisions of the Act. (1997) 6 SCC 29 followed. -- [Para 12]
(6) Rules -- cannot override the Act -- Act not prescribing limitation -Rules cannot prescribe the same. 1963 JLJ 370 relied on. [Para 13]
(7) Rules -- interpretation of -- should be according to Act -- they should also be construed in the light of statutory scheme. AIR 1965 SC 1107 followed. [Para 13]
(8) Interpretation of Statutes--plain and unambiguous words in the Statute -- no other interpretation can be made. AIR 1976 SC 331 followed. [Para 14]
(9) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.)--S. 91 -- word ‘or" used under—is neither disjunctive nor conjunctive -- it simply provides that appeal or revision shall lie in such manner as may be prescribed. [Para 20]
(10) Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (M.P.)--Rr. 3 and 5--order in appeal under R. 3 -- revisable under R. 5. MCC 72/99 relied on. [Para 21]
(11) Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (M.P.) -- Rr. 3 and 5 -- MP. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S. 91 -- S. 91 mentions appeal and revision against proceedings of Panchayat -- no procedure under Rules is prescribed for such appeal and revision. [Para 24]
(12) Official Language Act, 1957 (M.P.)--S. 4--notification No.1281-216-XX-CC dt. 1st June, 1963 -- official language of MP. State is Hindi -- text in Hindi is original text which should be relied on. 1997 (1) JLJ 391 relied on. [Paras 25 & 26]
(13) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 91 -- MP. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 -- Rr. 3 to 5-- proceedings off Panchayat -- Hindi text does not provide any appeal or revision against -- only order passed in pursuance of resolutions -- is appealable. 1999 (1) JLJ 146 and 1998 (2) JLJ 267 relied on. [Para 27]
(14) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.)--Ss. 84 and 85 (1) and (2) -- resolution Panchayat -- may be - Suspended, confirmed set aside revised or modified under -- that can be done after following the procedure under and Rules framed. [Para 28]
(15) Panchayat (Inspection of Proceedings) Rules, 1995 (M.P.) -- Rr. 3 (2)(a), 4 and 5 -- proceedings of Panchayat -- may be inspected on receiving complaint -- inspection can be carried out by authorities mentioned in these provisions -- after report resolution can be dealt with as provided under S. 85 of the Adhiniyam. [Para 28]
¼1½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;&‘‘kCn ^vFkok*&lkekUr% fo;kstd ds :i esa i<+k tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 360 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 6 ¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu&ljy rFkk lk/kkj.k vFkZ fudkyk tkuk pkfg,&‘‘kCnksa dk ljy Hkk"kk esa fuoZpu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼1996½ 10 ,l lh lh 42 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 7 ¼3½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 91&,d gh iqujh{k.k pyus ;ksX;&vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fojfpr fu;e&vf/kfu;e ds v/khu çnÙk ‘kfDr;ksa ls vf/kd ugha gks ldrsA ¿iSjk 10 ¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;&‘‘kCn ^vkns‘k*&dk vFkZ ml vkns‘k ls gS ftlls i{kdkjksa ds vf/kdkj rFkk nkf;Ro çHkkfor gksrs gSaA 1981 ,e ih vkj lh ts 21 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 11 ¼5½ fu;e&mica/k fo/kku&eaMy ds vf/kfu;e ds fojks/k esa&vf/kfu;e vfHkHkkoh gksxk&fueksa dk vFkkZUo;u vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ls lqlaxr gksuk pkfg,A ¼1997½ 6 ,l lh lh 29 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 12 ¼6½ fu;e&vf/kfu;e ij vfHkHkkoh ugha gks ldrs&vf/kfu;e esa ifjlhek fofgr ugha&fue esa fofgr ugha dh tk ldrhA 1963 ts ,y ts 370 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 13 ¼7½ fu;e&fuokZpu&vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj gksuk pkfg,&mudk vFkkZUo;u dkuwuh ;kstuk ds çdk‘k esa Hkh fd;k tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 1107 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 13 ¼8½ fof/k dk fuoZpu&dkuwu esa ljy rFkk vlafnX/kkFkZd ‘‘kCn&vU fuoZpu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 331 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 14 ¼9½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 91&ç;qDr ‘‘kCn ^vFkok*&u fo;kstd gS] u la;kstd gh&blls ek= ;g micaf/kr gS fd vihy vFkok iqujh{k.k ml jhfr esa gksxk tSlh fofgr dh tk,A ¿iSjk 20 ¼10½ iapk;r ¼vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1995 ¼e-ç-½&fu-3 rFkk 5&fu-3 ds v/khu vihy esa vkns‘k&fu-5 ds v/khu iqujh{k.kh; gSA çdh.kZ flfoy ekeyk Ø-72@99 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 21 ¼11½ iapk;r ¼vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1995 ¼e-ç-½&fu-3 rFkk 5&e-ç- iapk;r jkt] vf/kfu;e] 1993&/kkjk 91&/kkjk 91 esa iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh ds fo#) vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k mfYyf[kr&,sls vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k ds fy, fu;eksa ds v/khu çfØ;k fofgr ughaA ¿iSjk 24 ¼12½ jktHkk"kk vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 4&vf/klwpuk Ø-1281&216 chl xx fnukad 1 twu 1963&e-ç- jkT; dh jktHkk"kk fganh gS&fganh dk ewy ikB gS ftldk voyac fy;k tkuk pkfg,A 1997¼1½ ts ,y ts 391 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 25 rFkk 26 ¼13½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 91&e-ç- iapk;r ¼vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1995&fu-3 ls 5&iapkr dh dk;Zokgh&ds fo#) fganh ikB esa vihy vFkok iqujh{k.k micaf/kr ugha&ladYiksa ds vuqlj.k esa ikfjr vkns‘k gh&vihyuh gSaA 1999¼1½ ts ,y ts 146 rFkk 1998 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 267 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 27 ¼14½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 84] 85¼1½ rFkk ¼2½&iapkr dk ladYi&fuyafcr] iq"V] vikLr] myVk ;k mikarfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS&,slk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu çfØ;k rFkk fojfpr fu;eksa dk vuqlj.k djds fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 28 ¼15½ iapk;r ¼dk;Zokfg;ksa dk fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1995 ¼e-ç-½&fu- 3¼2½ ¼d½] 4 rFkk 5&iapkr dh dk;Zokgh&f‘kdk;r çkIr gksus ij fujh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gS&fujh{k.k bu mica/kksa esa mfYyf[kr çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fd;k tk ldrk gS&fjiksVZ ds i‘pkr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 85 esa ;Fkk micaf/kr ladYi dj dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gSA ¿iSjk 28
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.1997 passed by the Collector. Morena in revision (Annexure P/6) The revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional-officer in appeal and quashed the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order Annexure P/6 passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction. Under Section 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. 1993 (hereinafter, referred to as the Adhiniyam') remedy of either appeal or revision is available. He submitted that the order of the revisional Court is without jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even otherwise, resolution passed by the Panchayat is neither appealable nor revisable under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Therefore, the appeal before the Sub-Divisional-Officer was not competent. He further submitted that since the appeal itself was not maintainable, therefore, any order in revision is without Jurisdiction and the entire proceedings culminating into revision deserve to be quashed.
4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the light of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ham Karan Singh Tomar v. Janpod Panchayat, Porsa & others (M.C.C. No. 72/1999 decided on 4.5.1999 at Gwalior) after appeal. revision is maintainable
5. Section 91 of the Adhiniyam is reproduced below:-
"91 Appeal and revision
An appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under this Act. shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed"
6. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Municipality v. Tek Chand (AIR 1980 SC 360) interpreting the term 'or' and submitted that the word 'or' is normally read to be disjunctively. This judgment relates to Section 2(1) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954, where the word 'or' used in the definition of words 'or is otherwise unfit for human consumption', is interpreted that the word 'or' is to be read disjunctively.
7. Counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Shibani Engineering System, Bombay (1996) 10 SCC 42 and submitted that plain and ordinary meaning should be drawn the words are to be intrepreted from the plain language whether the words are conjunctive or disjunctive.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that revision after appeal is not maintainable.
9. Shri R.D Jain. Sr. Advocate. appeared as amicus curioe and argued the ease at length. He stressed upon the word 'or' and submitted that on plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, the word 'or' is used which is disjunctive and by no stretch of imagination it would be read as conjunctive.
10. On a bare reading of the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, it is apparent that only one revision will lie; rules if any, framed under the Adhiniyam cannot be in excess of the powers conferred under the Adhiniyam.
11. Shri RD. Jain, referred to a judgment in the case of Rami Bai v. Baldeoraj (1981 MPRCJ 21). In this case, the provisions of Section 31 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 were considered and the meaning of the word 'order' is determined. The word 'order' is interpreted as 'which affects the rights and liabilities of the parties'.
12. Shri RD. Jain further Submitted that if the rules are contrary to the Act then they cannot be read beyond the powers conferred under the Act. He referred to a judgment in the case of Sri Ganganagar Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Prescribed Authority (1997) 6 SCC 29 and submitted that whenever there is a conflict in the provisions of the rules and an Act of the legislature, the Act shall prevail. Learned counsel submitted that the rules are to be construed harmoniously with the provisions of the Act.
13. Shri Jain then referred to the judgment in t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
