MOHAMMAD ISHA KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Advocate by profession, is a resident of Village Kuraha, Block Navgaon, District Chhatarpur. In the District Chhatarpur, 53 circles were constituted for establishment of Gram Nyayalaya and the Village Kuraha was treated as one of the circles for the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya. For the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya Madhya Pradesh Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 1996 Act No. 26 of 1997 (for brevity 'the Act') was enacted and the same came into force on 19-5-1997. The Janpad Panchayat unanimously recommended one of the seven persons including that of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was included as a 'law knowing person'. On the basis of the recommendation issued by the Janpad Panchayat, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, issued a list of appointed members of Gram Nyayalaya after formalities were to be carried out by the Collector of the District. As set forth the name of the petitioner was published in daily newspaper "chhatarpur Bhaskar' on 23-5-2002. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navgaon by letter dated 27-5-2002 communicated to the petitioner that his presence was necessary for the election of Pradhan. The petitioner attended the same. He had also undergone training as per request letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navgaon.

(2.) AS pleaded, the petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Gram Nyayalaya, as is evincible from the document brought on record. But all of a sudden, on 11-12-2002 his nomination dated 1-5-2002, Annexure P-1 was cancelled without issuing him any notice to show cause. It is contended that the term of a member of a Gram Nyayalaya as per the provisions of the Act is five years, but the same has been curtailed by an abrupt stroke, without affording an opportunity of being heard despite the factum that the name of the petitioner was duly recommended and accepted by the State Government. It is urged in the petition that the petitioner was perfectly qualified to hold the post of the Member and in the absence of any disqualification his membership could not have been cancelled and that too is in flagrant violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. In this background a prayer has been made for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of cancellation contained in Annexure P-5.

(3.) AT the very outset, it is though condign to state that though no counter affidavit was filed by the State of M. P. but Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Govt. Advocate for the State agreed to argue the matter without filing a return, as it was canvassed by him that a pure question of law arises on the factual assertion made by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I have heard the matter finally.