ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

"(i) A writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 22.8.2023 (P/1) and 26.9.2023 (P/2).

(ii) A writ of mandamus to respondents for reimbursing the amount recovered from petitioner No.1.

(iii) Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances circumstances."

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that by impugned order dated 26.9.2023 passed by Additional Collector (Development)/Prescri (Development)/Prescribed Authority, Zila Panchayat, Anuppur in File No.2694/Zi.Pan./Pan.Pr No.2694/Zi.Pan./Pan.Prako./Section/92/Case.No.-91/2023 91/2023, petitioner No.1 has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,60,960/ Rs.2,60,960/- in addition to Rs.56,772/- which he has already deposited. A solitary contention is raised by counsel for petitioners petitioner that since order under challenge has been passed under section 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, Adhiniyam 1993 (in short "Act,, 1993") without any inquiry under section 89 of said Act, therefore, it is bad in law. It is further submittedd that case is hand is covered by order dated 20.8.2024 passed by this Court in the case of Prashant Kurariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in W.P. No.23743/2024.

3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. However, owever, it is fairly conceded that that case in hand is covered by order passed by this Court in the case of Prashant Kurariya (supra).

4. Heard learned counsel for parties.

5. This Court in the case of Prashant Kurariya (supra) has passed the following order:

"This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order impugned dated 30.7.2024 (Ann.P/1) in the interest of justice.

(ii) To quash qua the show-cause cause notice dated 4.7.2024 (Ann.P/2) so far as same relates to petitioner.

(iii) To direct the respondents to consider the stand of petitioner while taking the action under section 92 of the Act of 1993.

(iv) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition may also be given by this Hon'ble Court."

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the case in hand is duly covered by the order dated 17.9.2021 passed by this Court in the the case of Bhupendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others in W.P.No.16424/2021 (Gwalior Bench) and, therefore, this petition be also disposed of in the case of terms and conditions of order passed in the case of Bhupendra Singh (supra).

3. Per contra, the petition petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, after going through the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Narendra Pandey v. State of M.P. and others, decided on 20.2.2017 in Writ Appeal No.294/2016 (Gwalior Bench) as well as the order passed by this Court in Bhupendra Singh (Gwalior Bench), it is submitted that the (supra) (Gwalior aforesaid two orders will cover the controversy involved in the present petition.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

5. This Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh (supra) has passed the following order :-

"Shri Shri A.S. Bhadoriya, Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ajay Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the State.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

"i) Notice under s. 92 (Annexure P/1) and consequential proceedings may kindly be quashed.

ii) Respondent be directed not to undertake any proceedings without there being any adjudication under s. 89 of the Act.

iii) Any other o relief which this Hon'ble Court, in facts and circumstances of the present case, deems fit."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order dated 29.7.2021, a show cause notice has