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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13664

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Sandhya Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajay Pal Singh,

With the consent, finally heard.

This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated

01.02.2023 passed in W.P. No. 2268 of 2023 whereby learned

Single Judge has issued notices to the respondents and granted

limited conditional interim protection to the appellant.

2.

The appellant is aggrieved to the extent learned Single Judge

has declined to grant interim protection against the direction to

register the first information report (FIR).

3.

The relevant facts are that appellant/petitioner was a

Surpanch till 2020. The specified authority/CEO, Jila Panchayat

Satna (respondent No.3) passed an order dated 02.01.2023 whereby

a recovery was imposed on the petitioner and in addition, the CEO

Janpad Panchayat Maihar was directed to lodge a FIR against the

petitioner and the other persons concerned.

3

4.

Shri Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that impugned order was passed in exercise of power

under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj

Adhiniyam, 1993 (Adhiniyam). Sub Section 4 of Section 92 makes

it clear that principles of natural justice are codified in the shape of

Sub Section 4 of Section 92.

5.

The two folds submissions raised are tha

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