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

2008 Supreme(MP) 559

A.K.PATNAIK, SANJAY YADAV
Leelawati – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Abhishek Arjaria for petitioners; Vivekanand Awasthy, Government Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. The petitioners are permanent residents of Gram Panchayat, Baroli in Tahsil Ajaygarh. The Gram Panchayat, Baroli failed to appoint a Panchayat Karmi within the specified period and, therefore, the Collector in exercise of power under section 86 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adiniyam') authorised the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ajaygarh to appoint a Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Baroli. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ajaygarh issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Baroli. Petitioners and other candidates applied in pursuance to the advertisement to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ajaygarh. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ajaygarh appointed the respondent No.6 as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Baroli. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under. Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Mr. Abhishekh Arjaria, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under section 70 of the Adhiniyam only the Gram Panchayat can appoint a Panchayat Karmi










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