VINOD MEENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against any specific order but it is preferred being aggrieved by the arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal action on the part of Naib Tehsildar, Circle - 1, Manpur, Tehsil Sheopur, District Sheopur whereby despite directions having been issued by respondent No.2/Collector vide order dtd. 18/3/2024 to decide the petitioner's objection on the maintainability of the proceedings of case No.05/2023/24A-70, learned Naib Tahsildar is not bothering to obey the direction and is adamant to proceed further in the matter.

(2.) The aforesaid fact has been assailed on the ground that respondent No.2/Collector vide order dtd. 18/3/2024 passed in case No. 142/B-121/2023-24 had directed respondent no.3 to decide the petitioner's objection first in accordance with law and then decide the matter, therefore, respondent No.3 was under a legal obligation and is duty bound to decide the question of maintainability first and despite the said directions, respondent No.3 is proceeding with the matter and is not deciding the objections.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dtd. 18/3/2024, the respondent No.2/Collector in specific terms had directed respondent no.3 to decide the objections preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law but instead of deciding the objection at the first instance, respondent No.3 is proceeding with the matter which is dehors the directions issued by the Collector. Thus, suitable directions are required to be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's objection first which is with regard to maintainability of the proceedings of case No.05/2023-24/A-70.