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

2008 Supreme(MP) 627

SHANTANU KEMKAR
Prajapal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
L.C. Patne for petitioner; Arvind Gokhale, Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

ORDER

1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The relevant facts of the case briefly are that petitioner applied for the appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Balodiya District Mandsaur. The Gram Panchayat adopted the resolution dated 8.6.2002 for the appointment of the petitioner as Gram Panchayat Karmi. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent Ramchandra filed an appeal under section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (For short "Adhiniyam") before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer did not find any illegality in the resolution by which the petitioner was selected and appointed as Panchayat Karmi. He accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the 4th respondents vide order dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure P-12).

3. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent filed Revision No. 52/02-03 before the Additional Collector Mandsaur. The Additional Collector Mandsaur vide order dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P-13) allowed the revision holding that on perusal of the record of Gram Panchayat it appears that the petitioner has been wrongly selected. It has been further observed that in spite of there being othe









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