1 WP No.21944/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA

ON THE 26^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

WRIT PETITION No. 21944 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

MANNA LAL JADHAV S/O SHRI SUBHASH JADHAW,

AGED

ABOUT

39

YEARS,

OCCUPATION:

SUB

ENGINEER

(CONTRACT),

POSTED

JANPAD

PANCHAYAT

AMARPUR

DISTRICT

DINDORI

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI V.D.S. CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE

PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY,

PANCHAYAT

DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL

(MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

COMMISSIONER MADHYA PRADESH ROJGAR

GUARANTEE COUNCIL BHOPAL, NARMADA

BHAWAN, SECOND FLOOR 'C' WINGS BHOPAL

(MADHYA PRADESH)

3.

COLLECTOR, DISTRICT - DINDORI (MADHYA

PRADESH)

4.

JILA

PANCHAYAT-DINDORI

THROUGH

ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT

DINDORI,

DISTRICT

DINDORI

(MADHYA

2 WP No.21944/2023

PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been

filed seeking following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ nature of certiorari to quash the

impugned order dated 17/08/2023 passed by the

respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P/1 in the interest of

justice.

II. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this

Hon'ble court deems fit."

2.

By order dated 29.08.2023, Government Advocate was directed to

seek instructions in the matter. Thereafter, a further time was granted by

order dated 21.09.2023.

3.

Shri Naveen Dubey on the basis of instructions received from the

authorities submitted that in fact petitioner himself had filed an

application pointing out that he may be considered for transfer to

Khargone or Khandwa or Harda. It was also mentioned in the said

application that he has already spent 11 long years. It is submitted that

although first priority of the petitioner was Khargone but after

considering the administrative requirements, petitioner has been

transferred to Harda which was also one of the options submitted by

3 WP No.21944/2023

petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has suppressed this fact

and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further

submitted that the signatures of the petitioner on affidavit and

Vakalatnama are substantially different from his admitted signature on

his application or representation as Annexure P/5.

4.

In the first round of the day, counsel for petitioner prayed for pass

over so that he may seek instructions in the matter in the light of

submissions made by counsel for State.

5.

In the second round, after seeking instructions from petitioner, it

was fairly conceded by Shri V.D.S. Chouhan that petitioner had moved

an application for his transfer to either Khargone or Khandwa or Harda

but he did not disclose the same in the writ petition.

6.

Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

7.

In the writ petition, it has not been disclosed that petitioner had

moved an application for his transfer either to Khargone or Khandwa or

Harda. Therefore, it is clear that petition has been filed by suppressing

material facts. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered

opinion that petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material facts.

8.

The Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah v. Union of

India and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120 has held as under:

10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature

of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a

discretionary remedy. Access to justice i