MAYA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has called in question the order dated 27.10.2010 Annexure P-I, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Tehsil Nagod, District Satna and order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the Collector, Satna. By earlier order the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch, in exercise of power under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). By later order the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. The contention of the petitioner is that she was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Umari (Brajnandan), Tehsil Nagod, District Satna on 11.02.2010. However, since she was not being delivered the charge of the post by the Ex-Sarpanch she made a complaint before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nagod, District Satna as also before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Nagod, District Satna on 17.02.2010. It is the contention that on the applications made by the petitioner since no action was taken, ultimately she filed an application under Section 92 of the Act on 24.02.2010 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nagod. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of making of such an application by the petitioner, notices were issued to the non-applicants by the Sub Divisional Officer and their replies were received. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since such complaint was made, the authorities have started acting against the petitioner malafidely and issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling her explanation as to why the petitioner should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch. She made an application and also filed a revision before the Collector against the said show cause notice. Since nothing was done in that matter, revision was not decided, the petitioner made the application before the Sub Divisional Officer again for taking action against the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some order was issued by the Zila Panchayat with reference to one memo issued by the Commissioner, Rewa to make appropriate arrangement of a substitute of the Panchayat Secretary. It is contended that because of these reasons, the order was passed on 27.10.2010 against the petitioner and she has been removed from the post. Since the removal order was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, the same was called in question by filling an appeal before the Collector, Satna but the same has been dismissed therefore, this writ petition has been filed. It is contended that the action was improperly initiated against the petitioner though the complaint was made by the petitioner against the then Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, who was not co-operating with the petitioner to take over the charge of the post. It is contended that such an order being passed on malafide action of the authorities is liable to be quashed. The respondents in response to the notice of writ petition have filed their return and have contended that action was rightly taken against the petitioner as she was not discharging her duties as Sarpanch in the Gram Panchyat. It is contended that after making an enquiry the Chief Executive Officer has given a report that the petitioner was not complying with the directions of the authorities of taking over the charge or opening the joint account for the purposes of distribution of pension to the disabled and elderly persons. These being the reasons, it was said that the petitioner was not entitled to continue on the post of Sarpanch. It is further contended that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as provided under Section 40 of the Act and thereafter the order was passed after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus it is contended that the petition is misconceived and merits dismissal.

(2.) The intervenor has a very limited role in the present petition and since the intervenor was authorized to function as adhoc Sarpanch till the elections are held, the prayer is made to grant permission to oppose the petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.