IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 15^th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 18392 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

BAINGANGA MACHHUHA SAHKARI SAMITI THR. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHRAHA AGED 40 YEARS OCCU. MACHHLI PALAN S.O LAXMAN PRASAD GRAM BAGLAI, TEH. KEVLARI, DISTT.

SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR JAIN- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHEKH NABI S/O SHRI SEKH HABIB, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, MACHHUA SHAKARI SAMITI KEVLARI KHEDA, GRAM AHARWADA, VIKASH KHAND KEVLARI DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COLLECTOR SEONI DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD PANCHAYAT KEVALARI DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI PURUSHOTTAM LAL PANDEY- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, SHRI SWATANTRA PANDEY- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )

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

ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both of parties.

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2020 (Annexure P/12) passed in case No.420/Appeal/2019-20 by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, whereby the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the appeal has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier, after rejection of objections vide order dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure P/9) passed in case No.420/Appeal/2019-20, the petitioner had approached this Court in M.P. No.2221/2020. This Court vide order dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure P/10) disposed of the Miscellaneous Petition with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal i.e. Appeal No.420/Appeal/2019-20 within a period of three months from submitting the certified copy of the order. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.11.2020, the objections have been overruled by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following contentions:

1. Learned Appellate Court could not have entertained the appeal, inasmuch as certified copy of the impugned order was not filed by respondent No.1.

2. The appeal ought to have been dismissed since the permanent committee has not been arrayed as a party respondent.

3. According to Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as Adhiniyam of 1993), Section 6 provides for limitation of 30 days for filing of the appeal. In absence of certified copy of the impugned order, the period of limitation cannot be calculated. Moreover, Section 7 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 provides for the format for filing of the appeal. Learned Appellate Court has failed to consider Sections 6 and 7 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 before rejecting the objections of the petitioner. These objections are mandatory. The Appellate Court while rejecting the objections has held that the the photo copy of the impugned order has been compared with the original order after calling of the records from the Court below, as such merely on technical objections, the appeal cannot be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel further pointed out that in similar situation, the Appellate Authority has allowed the objections raised therein as per Annexure P/8. The said order was pointed out before the Appellate Authority but the same was not considered and objections were rejected.

On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner has challenged the order impugned before this Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed the reply and has vehemently opposed the prayer. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is perfectly all right and needs no interference, inasmuch as the finding of the Appellate Court that it had compared the impugned order with original records is sufficient and