Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7336
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE (S.B.: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
Review Petition No.554/2021
1. State of M.P. through Principal Secretary, Panchayat & Social Justice Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal,(M.P.)
2. Divisional Commissioner, Ujjain, Division Ujjain, (M.P.)
3. Collector/ Authorized Officer, Ujjain, District- Ujjain, (M.P.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, District Ujjain, (M.P.)
(Original Respondent No.1 to 4)
---Petitioners.
Versus
1. Ku. Preeti Patidar D/o Satnarayan Patidar, aged;Adult, Occupation Sarpanch, R/o Village Kharsodkhurd, Janpad Panchayat Barnagar, District Ujjain (Original Petitioner)
--Respondent.
*****
Shri Siddharth Jain, proxy counsel appearing for Shri Aditya Garg, learned counsel for the Petitioners. He is heard on the question of admission and interim relief .
Aditya Garg,
O R D E R
(27.09.2021)
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others have filed the present review petition under order 47 Rule 1 r/w 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for brevity) seeking review of order dated 23.06.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.17964/2020 and Writ Petition No.6332/2021.
(2). By the aforesaid order, the writ petitions filed by the respondent No.1 were allowed and order of removal from the post of ‘Pradhan' (Head) of the Administrative Committee has been quashed with cost of Rs. 15,000.
(3). Present review petition has been filed mainly on the two grounds firstly that proceedings under Section 89 and 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj & Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam, 1993' for brevity) both are independent proceedings secondly, the post of 'Pradhan' is only stop gap arrangements and petitioner has no substantive right to claim the reinstatement on the said post. The prescribed authority initiated the proceedings under Section 89 of Adhiniyam, 1993 but wrongly mentioned section 92 of Adhiniyam, 1993 in the impugned order, therefore quoting the wrong provision cannot be ground of quashing.
(4). Shri Aditya Garg, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the review petitioners are not seeking the review of order dated 23.06.2021 passed in writ petition on merit but there is wrong interpretation of section 89 and 92 of Adhiniyam, 1993, hence the present review petition has been filed. He further submits that this Court while passing the order, this court has held that the proceedings under section 92 of Adhiniyam, 1993 like a execution proceedings and before initiation of such proceeding there has to be an adjudication in respect of recovery of the amount under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, therefore, proceeding under section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 cannot be taken up without following procedure under section 89 of Adhiniyam, 1993. It is further submitted that the Section 89 speaks about the liability of Panch and other office bearers, employees for recovery of the loss, misappropriation etc. whereas section 92 of Adhiniyam, 1993 deals with the power to recover article, record and money belonging to the Panchayat. After adjudication under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the money is liable to be recovered by way of land revenue not by initiating the proceeding under the provisions of Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, hence, there is wrong interpretation of the both the provision, thus the order is liable to be reviewed.
For ready reference section 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam are reproduced below:-
| Section 89. Liability of Panch etc. for loss, misappropriation | Section 92. Power to recover records, articles and money. - |
| (1) . Every Panch, member, office- bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat [or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] [or Committee of Gram Sabha] shall he personally liable for loss, waste or misapplication of any money or | (1) Where the prescribed authority is of the opinion that any person has unauthorizedly in his custody any record or article or money belonging to the Panchayat, [or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] [or Committee of |
| other property of the Panchayat [or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] [or Committee of Gram Sabha] to which he has been a party or which has been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The amount required for reimbursing such loss, waste, or misapplication shall be recovered by the prescribed authority : Provided that no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) If the person concerned fails to pay the amount, such amount shall he recovered as arrears of land revenue and |
