RAJENDRA Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern disposal of W.P.No.2803/2010, which is the petition filed by respondent No.5.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since the petitioners were meritorious and were at serial No.1 and 4 while respondent No.5 was at serial No.7, therefore, order dated 29.9.2007 passed by CEO respondent No.3 is illegal and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that candidatures of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that petitioner No.2 is not resident of the same Gram Panchayat, which is not correct as is evident from the certificate annexed. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the order dated 27.1.2007 passed byCollector, Barwani and order dated 29.9.2007 passed by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, be quashed.

(3.) In W.P.No.2803/2010, which is the petition filed by respondent No.5, it is submitted that against the order dated 27.1.2007 remedy was available to the respondent No.4 to file appeal before the Collector but No appeal was filed by respondent No.4 before the Collector and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner, who was having no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the appellate authority is Collector. It is submitted that no resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat to file appeal, therefore, appeal was filed by respondent No.4 in individual capacity. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was having no authority to file appeal in his individual capacity. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Gram Panchayat, Bamrol Vs. Jagdish Singh Rawat, 2008 3 MPLJ 127, wherein Division Bench of this Court held that having power to sue or to be sued it has to authorize somebody to act on its behalf and without the resolution by authorizing any person to sue on behalf of the Panchayat, the Sarpanch cannot sue and file an appeal independently. It was also held that writ appeal as filed by the Sarpanch is incompetent and not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that in view of this also the respondent No.4 was having no authority to fileappeal before Commissioner and also the writ before this Court and also revision before the State Government. Learned counsel submits that the eligibility of respondent No.5 was also challenged on the ground that respondent No.5 is not resident of the village. It is submitted that Collector found the domicile certificate issued to respondent No.5 is genuine. The complaint was dismissed, therefore, validity of the domicile certificate has attained finality. Learned counsel submits that against the order passed by Collector, remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners, but no appeal was filed by the petitioners before the commissioner, hence the order passed by collector also attains finality. It is submitted that in the circumstances petition filed by the petitioners W.P.No.6001/2009 be dismissed and the W.P.No.2803/2010 filed by respondent No.5 be allowed and the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the State Government be quashed.