DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to the show -cause notice, issued by this Court, Respondents have submitted their reply.

(2.) PETITIONER is challenging the order, passed by Respondent No.1, dt. 4.4.1998 and the consequential order, passed by Respondent No.2 dt. 30.4.1998, whereby, Respondent No.3 has been reinstated as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Eklera. Petitioner was elected as Up -Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. It appears that an action was taken against respondent No.3 on the basis of complaint. The prescribed authority acting under S.40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (For brevity the 'Adhiniyam') served respondent No.3 with a notice alongwith Charge -sheet to show -cause under this Adhiniyam for his removal from the office. 3On account of service of notice alongwith charge -sheet, as required under S.39, of the Adhiniyam, the respondent No.3 was suspended from holding the charge of Sarpanch. The said order is required to be reported to the State Government under sub -section (2) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam within 10 days and shall be subject to such orders, as the State Government may deem fit to pass. It further contemplates that in case the order of suspension is not confirmed by the State Government within 90 days from the date of receipt of such report, it shall be deemed to have been vacated.

(3.) Petitioner's contention is, that even, if, clause (b) of sub -sec.(1) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam, stood deleted from the statute book, but, since the order was already confirmed by the State Government on 3.10.1997, the same could not have been revoked even after deletion of the aforesaid provision.