IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI th ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 3825 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

ANAND JAIN S/O SHRI VINAY JAIN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD FROM SERVICE 101 PRIME CITY SUKHLIYA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AJAY JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESCRIBED OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT KHANDWA DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT P U N A S A DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) PUNASA DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI PUNIT SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

The petitioner, by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the order dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure-P/6)

passed by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority, Zila Panchayat, Khandwa, whereby the said authority exercising the power provided under Section 89 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short the 'Adhiniyam, 1993') has not only conducted an enquiry in respect of irregularity committed at Gram Panchayat Hantiya but also found misappropriation of Government fund amounting to Rs.92,75,000/- and as such, directed the persons concerned who were found involved in the alleged financial irregularity to deposit the amount in proportion otherwise recovery under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 shall be initiated against them.

2. The challenge is made basically on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, is not a competent authority to pass any order under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the Collector which can pass any order exercising the jurisdiction under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a notification issued on 05.03.1994 showing the Collector and Additional Collector as the competent authority for initiating proceeding under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993.

3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that circular dated 05.03.1994 has been amended vide notification dated 30.11.2022 and for Gram Panchayat, now the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat has been prescribed the competent authority. To substantiate his stand, learned Government Advocate has relied upon the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of Gwalior High Court in Writ Petition No.20165 of 2023 [Smt. Rachna Jatav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and otherrs]

wherein it has been held that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat is the competent authority for initiating proceeding under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993.

4. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and also the notification dated 30.11.2022 whereby for the Gram Panchayats, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat has been prescribed as a competent authority to initiate proceeding under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, I find no substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the case of Smt. Rachna Jatav (supra) on which learned Government Advocate has placed reliance is concerned, in the said case, the contention of counsel for the respondents therein was as follows:-

"5. It is further submitted that respondents never initiated any proceedings under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and passed the final order under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Main provision is Section 89 and Section 92 is execution proceedings but the respondents have directly starte