SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(MP) 651

S.S.JHA
Om Prakash Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
S.K. Jain for petitioner; J.D. Suryavanshi for State.

JUDGMENT

The petition is against the order dated 26.6.96 (AnnexureP/1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') provides for appeal and revision according to the rules framed under the Adhiniyam. Under sec. 91 of the Adhiniyam rules known as M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules (for short 'the Rules') have been framed. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that appeal shall lie against the orders passed by any authority of the Panchayat. However, rule 3 of the Rules which relates to appeal do not provide appeal against the, resolution. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for filing of revision. Rule 5 provides that the orders which are not included in rule 3 shall be revisable. On going through the provisions of section 91 of the Adhiniyam it is apparent that proceedings of the Panchayat can also be cha1lenged under the provisions of section 91 of the Adhiniyam.

Since proceedings are not included in rule 3 of the Rules, therefore, revisions s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top