RAMESHCHANDRA MEENA S/O LAXMINARAYAN MEENA AND TWO Vs. OMPRAKASH MEENA S/O RATANLAL MEENA AND FIVE OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order of the State Minister dated 16/11/2010 by which the revision preferred by the respondent No.1 under Section 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Act") has been allowed and the order of the Collector dated 7/4/2010 and the order of the Commissioner dated 16/4/2010 have been set aside.

(2.) In brief, the gram panchayat Dangra had passed the Resolution dated 24/1/2007 for appointment of the respondent No.1 as panchayat karmi. The Chief Executive Officer through the SDO, Kannod vide communication dated 5/5/2007 had pointed out to the Collector, various illegalities which were committed while passing the Resolution dated 24/1/2007 and requested for taking action under Section 85 of the Act. The Collector had initially passed the order dated 26/6/2007 suspending the execution of the Resolution, but the said order was set aside in appeal by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 23/4/2008 and this Court vide order dated 27/8/2009 passed in WP No.3211/2008 had remanded the matter back to the Collector to take appropriate decision in accordance with the law on the proposal received by him from the SDO, after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1. The Collector thereafter following the direction issued by this Court had passed the fresh order dated 7/4/2010 noting various irregularities which were committed while passing the Resolution dated 24/1/2007 and suspending the said Resolution exercising the powers under Section 85(1)(a)(b) of the Act and directing the gram panchayat to pass fresh Resolution for appointment of panchayat karmi in accordance with law. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 against the order of the Collector was rejected by the Commissioner and in revision, the State Minister has passed the impugned order dated 16/11/2010 setting aside the order of the Collector and directing that the respondent No.1 will continue to work on his post of panchayat karmi.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that while passing the impugned order, the State Minister has not considered that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was not in accordance with law and that the Collector had rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Act and no interference by the State Minister was required and the respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to continue on the post of panchayat karmi.