IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 2297 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

AKAL SINGH RAWAT S/O SHRI SITARAM RAWAT, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE DORD TEHSIL VIJAYPUR DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.S. RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER CHAMBAL DIVISION MORENA DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT SHEOPUR SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SMT. BAIKUNTHI KUSHWAH SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT DORD, TEHSIL VIJAYPUR DIST.

SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI PAVAN SINGH RAGHUVANSHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE AND SHRI NITIN AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

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

ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an interim order dated Signature Not Verified

23.01.2024 (Annexure P/1); whereby, the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Sheopur by which invoking the provisions of Section 40(1)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, services of one Smt. Baikunthi Kushwah, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dord, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Sheopur had been terminated alleging that she in her capacity as a Sarpanch had committed grave financial irregularity in giving social security pension and Panchayat fund, was stayed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dord, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Sheopur in the election. The petitioner made a complaint against the respondent No.4 for committing financial irregularities in giving social security pension and allocating Zila Panchayat funds, on the basis of which, notices were issued by the Janpad Panchayats on 17.01.2023 to the Secretary of Gram Pachayat but no action was taken by the respondents/authorities. Aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction, the present petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.8977 of 2023 before this Court and vide order dated 20.04.2023, the said petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, vide order dated 08.12.2023, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Sheopur invoking the provisions of Section 40(1)(a) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, had terminated the services of respondent No.4 alleging that she in her capacity as a Sarpanch had committed grave financial irregularities in giving social security pension and disbursing Panchayat funds. Against which, the respondent No.4 had preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner and vide interim order dated 23.01.2024, the Additional Commissioner had stayed the order passed by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Sheopur dated

08.12.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

Signature Not Verified

3. Upon a query made by this Court as to the locus of the present petitioner to maintain the present petition since none of his individual/legal rights were getting affected no plausible answer was advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, rather he went on arguing that since he was a complainant on the basis of which action was taken against respondent No.4 and without considering the aspect that the said person had played with the law and had embezzled lakhs of rupees, revocation of his suspension is bad in law and the authorities may be directed to take back the impugned order as she may again indulge herself in the illegal activities.

4. According to this Court, since the learned counsel for the petitioner could not establish the locus of the present petitioner to maintain the present petition, this petition is totally misconceived and in considered view of this Court, this petition is not maintainable in t