RAGHUBAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition is challenging the action of Janapad Panchayat, Jabalpur in making the nominations under M.P. Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Act No. 26/97 on the ground that nominations were made when the Rules were not framed. The process adopted is contrary to the Rules which have been framed subsequently to the nominations made.

(2.) PETITIONER is resident of village Pipariya within the Janapad Panchayat, Jabalpur and is former President of Janapad Panchayat, Jabalpur. State of M.P. enacted M.P. Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 1996 which received the assent of the President on 24th April, 1997 State Government issued a notification No. F -17(e) -37 -2000 -XXI -B(2) dated 11.1.2000 published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharana) dated 11.1.2000 fixing 26th January, 2001 for the coming in force of the Act. The State Government on 1.2.2001 by notification No. 21 -G.N. Pr -J -31 -2001 in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Act, declared the area comprising of Gram Panchayats forming circles and head quarters of the Gram Nayalaya. Thereafter, notification under section 4 was issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers u/s 4 of the Act on 9.2.2001 for establishment of Gram Nyayalaya. On 21.3.2001 Chief Executive Officer, Janapad Panchayat, Jabalpur issued a circular P -2 to all the Gram Panchayats for nomination of members of Gram Nyayalaya and calling of eligible person to file their applications in the Janapad Panchayat. Applications were received by 27.3.2001. Meeting of Janapad Panchayat was held on 30.3.2001.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents contending that petitioner has no locus standi to call in question the validity of the action. Petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. The State Government has already framed the Rules, M.P. Gram Nyayalaya Niyam, 2001 in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. The written objection is of no purport inasmuch as certain modifications in rules have already taken place. Memo R -2 has been issued on 17.6.2002 whereby minimum educational qualification for the members of SC/ST community is reduced to 5th class from 8th class examination for women candidates. The age has been reduced to 25 years. Section 11 of the Act is not mandatory. Thus, non -framing of the Rules cannot come in the way. It is incorrect that nominations were not made unanimously. Resolution indicates that nominations were made unanimously.