SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11168

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Monika Meshram – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 48023/2025



Advocates:
Sanjay Sharma[P-1],Advocate General[R-1]

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70433

1 WP-48023-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 19 OF DECEMBER, 2025

WRIT PETITION No. 48023 of 2025

SMT. MONIKA MESHRAM

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Shri Pravesh Naveriya - Advocate for respondents No.5 and 9 on

Caveat.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed

seeking following reliefs:-

(i) To call the record for the office of respondent No.3

in Case No. पं.(cid:4).(cid:5).46अ-40 वष (cid:9) 2025-26 for kind

perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing impugned order dated 24.11.2025

(Annex.P/11) passed by Respondent No.3 and allow the

petitioner to perform duty of Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat Ekodi.

(ii) Any other relief or writ or direction or order which

this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper looking the

facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the

petitioner including the cost of the litigation.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that complainant has made a complaint

to respondent No.3 alleging against the petitioner Sarpanch as well as

Secretary of Gram Panchayat Ekodi that the proposal for Patta for

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SHUBHANKAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 23-12-2025

13:19:58

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70433

2 WP-48023-2025

construction of house has been given in favour of one Jaiprakash Ganveer.

Thereafter, respondent No.3 has registered the case and has issued show

cause notice to the petitioner as well as to the then Secretary Gyaneshwar

and Chhotelal Rana. The said notice has been issued under Section 40 of the

Act and not under Sections 89, 92 of the Act. Petitioner thereafter submitted

her reply to the show cause notice before respondent No.3 stating that on

account of dispute with Upsarpanch Kamlesh, false report has been lodged

against her and it has been further stated that preparation of Resolution is the

duty of Secretary and not of the Sarpanch. Petitioner has also filed additional

reply stating therein that the Patta has already been cancelled much before

filing of complaint, therefore the complaint could not be entertained.

Petitioner has also put her evidence in affidavit. It is further submitted that

the so called Patta has already been cancelled by Naib Tehsildar on

29.04.2025 and the complainant has never appeared before respondent no.3

to prove the complaint.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent

No.3 has wrongly passed the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure

P/11) and the petitioner has wrongly been removed from the post of

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ekodi and further she has been debarred for

contesting any election for a period of 06 years. Therefore, this petition has

been filed seeking quashment of impugned order dated 24/11/2025.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State as

well as respondents No.5 and 9 on Caveat have vehemently opposed the

petition averments and submitted that against the order passed by respondent

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SHUBHANKAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 23-12-2025

13:19:58

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70433

3 WP-48023-2025

No.3/ Chief Executive Officer (Prescribed Authority), Jila Panchayat

Balaghat, petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy of assailing

the same by filing an Appeal. Therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of

the Writ Petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is having alternative and

efficacious remedy of filing an Appeal against the order impugned passed

by respondent No.3/ Chief Executive Officer (Prescribed Authority), Jila

Panchayat Balaghat.

7. Therefore, no interference by this Court in the impugned order is

called for as the petitioner is having alternative and efficacious r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top