MARKANDEY MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the both sides.

(2.) THE learned single judge in the impugned order has recorded as follows: "Form the records, it is clear that all the three authorities namely Sub Divisional Officer, Collector and the Commissioner have looked into the matter and have recorded a concurrent finding. THE appeals and the revisions filed by the petitioner were rejected by all the three authorities. THE Sub Divisional Officer vide order Annexure P 9 dated 31.12.2007 has called for the original record and on due scrutiny of the records found that the petitioner did not submit the requisite documents in accordance with requirement of the rule. It was found that the documents were not attested and the tenability of the documents was not certified and, thereafter, the Gram Panchayat issued notice to the petitioner and gave him liberty to submit the documents in accordance with requirement of the rule. When the process server went for serving notice to the petitioner, petitioner was not available in his house and, therefore, the notice was affixed and, inspite thereof, till the date of passing of the resolution, the documents were not filed as required under the rule, therefore, the impugned action is taken. THE Panchayat has issued notice to the petitioner and when inspite of notice, petitioner did not submit the documents in accordance with requirement of the rule and on the ground that the documents were improperly filed, it is held that the Gram Panchayat has not committed any error. THE aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer is on due scrutiny of the original record and this finding of fact was affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner also refused to interfere into the matter."

(3.) CONSIDERING the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find the appeal is worth admission. Appeal dismissed.