SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts as elaborated in the petition reflect that the petitioner herein was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on the strength of a resolution dtd. 13/09/2002. Thereafter, the petitioner herein was further notified as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pachouha in terms of Sec. 69(1) Madhya Pradesh Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam 1993 for the sake of brevity) vide order dtd. 24/03/2003 (Annexure P/3). Later on Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat moved a complaint before the Collector, while alleging that on the basis of manipulated resolution, appointment has been secured by the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi. The said complaint was forwarded to Sub Divisional Office, (SDO) Anuppur, District Shahdol. Vide order dtd. 31/05/2003, the SDO while exercising suo moto power under Sec. 91 of the Adhiniyam 1993 has set aside the resolution dtd. 13/09/2002 and recommended the Collector to cancel the notification dtd. 24/03/2003 by which the petitioner herein was notified as Panchayat Secretary in terms of Sec. 69(1) of the Adhiniyam 1993. The order of SDO was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector and the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/11/2004. Against the order of Collector, the petitioner then preferred a Revision before the Commissioner Division Rewa which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 13/02/2007. Hence, assailing the orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Collector as well as the Commissioner, this petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned dtd. 31/05/2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is nullity inasmuch as the Sec. 91 of the Adhiniyam 1993 does not extend suo moto power to SDO to entertain the appeal against the resolution. The powers under Sec. 91 of the Adhiniyam 1993 can only be invoked by an aggrieved party whereas in the present case, paragraph 2 of order impugned, unequivocally reflects that the SDO has exercised suo moto power which is not permissible under Sec. 91 of the Adhiniyam 1993. This aspect though highlighted before the Collector, however, the Collector without dealing with the same proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The said aspect was not even taken into consideration by the Commissioner as well while passing the impugned order dtd. 13/02/2007. Thus, submits that the order impugned deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that as per the scheme of Sec. 91 of the Adhiniyam 1993, the SDO was within competence to invoke suo moto powers of appeal and therefore, no fault can be attributed to the SDO. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that while taking into consideration that there was a bogus resolution on the basis of employment secured by the petitioner thus the same was rightly interfered with by the SDO by passing the impugned order therefore no interference is warranted. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.