DINESH KUMAR AWASTHY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANCHAYAT and Janpad Panchayat - relating to Shiksha Karmis - appealable -- no writ petition maintainable. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 4 raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order dated 23.7.1997 (Annexure P-5) was passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jabalpur and consequent, order dated 24.1.2002 (Annexure P-10) was passed by Gram Panchayat, Sagra Jhapni. The aforesaid order is appealable under the provision of MP. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. He placed reliance on three judgments of this Court in W.P. No. 1604/1997 (Dhum Singh v. State of M.P.) decided on 4.11.1997 [1998(11) MPWN 23], in W.P. No. 2564/2001 (Latori Ram Yadav and others v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 9.7.2001 and W.P. No. 180/2001 (Yogesh Pandey and others v. Rajiv Gandhi Primary Shiksha Mission and others) decided on 17.1.2003 and contended that, statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. In the circumstances, writ petition cannot be entertained.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner contends that this Court in various cases has exercised jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, whereas the matter relating to Guruji has been decided. But none of the case has been placed in which this question of alternative remedy has been decided. This Court in Dhum Singh (supra) has considered this question and held :

(3.) IN view of settled position of this Court in the case of Guruji, against the order passed by Janpad Panchayat and Gram, remedy lies under the provision of M.P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and unless and until, the petitioner makes out some case for exercising wit jurisdiction, the aforesaid jurisdiction cannot be exercised. In the present case nothing has been pointed out to exercise writ jurisdiction. Consequently, petitioner is directed to file appeal before the appellant authority challenging orders Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-10. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner may be permitted to file appeal within a time bound in time bound period to that petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal.