This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been

filed seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari letter

datd 22.04.2022 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus

respondents may kindly be restrained to take any

coercive action against the petitioner.

(iii) Any other writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court

may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2.

It is the case of petitioner that by impugned order dated

22.04.2022, a direction has been issued to lodge an F.I.R. on the basis

of report submitted by National Level Monitor Team (NLM) against

petitioner and others for committing irregularities in Gram Panchayat,

Nadiya in an arbitrary manner.

3.

It is submitted that direction has been issued contrary to the

mechanism, which has already been provided under the Mahatma

Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short

‘MGNREGA Act’) and Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram

Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘Adhiniyam 1993’) by which the

loss and misappropriation can be recovered. It is further submitted that

the act of the officers is protected under Section 28 and 30 of

3 W.P.No.9743/2022

MGNREGA Act. It is further submitted that although there was an

order not to take any coercive step but during the pendency of petition,

FIR has been lodged at Police Station and accordingly the petitioner by

incorporating amendment has also challenged the FIR dated

29.04.2022. It is the case of petitioner that as per Sections 28 and 30 of

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005

(for short 'MGNREGA Act') anything which has been done in good

faith is exempted from prosecution or other legal proceedings. It is

further submitted that allegations made against petitioner in the letter

written by Collector are completely vague. There were no allegations

against petitioner in spite of that CEO has written to the SHO, Police

Station, Digoda District Tikamgarh to lodge FIR against several

persons including petitioner. It is further submitted that even otherwise,

allegations made against petitioner would not prima facie make out a

cognizable offence and under the facts and circumstances of case,

preliminary enquiry was desirable as held by Supreme Court in the

case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and

Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It is further submitted that

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam is a

complete Act in itself according to which, unless and until an enquiry

is conducted under Sections 89 and 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat

Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, no civil liability can be imposed

on the petitioner and accordingly, lodging of FIR is not warranted.

4.

Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for

State and it is submitted that lodging of FIR is not dependent upon the

4 W.P.No.9743/2022

findings recorded under Section 89 and 92 of Madhya Pradesh

Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Furthermore, the

protection as provided under Section 30 of MGNREGA Act will be

applicable only if it is found that the act of petitioner was in good faith.

Whether the petitioner had acted in good faith or not is a disputed

question of fact.

5.

Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

Whether, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of Section 28 and 30

of MGNREGA Act or not.

6.

Section 28 and 30 of MGNREGA Act reads as under:

28. Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of

this Act or the Schemes made thereunder shall have

effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contained in any other law for the time being in force or

in any instrument having effect by vi