LAWS(MPH)-2009-3-72

GRAM PANCHAYAT BANCHHORA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On March 19, 2009
GRAM PANCHAYAT BANCHHORA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed under Section 2 of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005, assailing the order dated 17-1 -2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5692/2006 (S)by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27-3-2006 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, in revision No. 595/a-89/2001-2002 was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner'submitted that before the additional Commissioner, the date of hearing was fixed for-4-3-2006 on which date the Additional Commissioner fixed the case for hearing for 24-4-2006 as per Annexure P-5 filed before the Writ Court. The respondent No. 2, Jugal kishore Pathak, filed an application on 24-3-2006 before the Additional commissioner and Additional Commissioner on the same date preponed hearing of the case without notice to the appellant, heard the matter on the premises that both the parties had already filed written arguments and closed the case for orders. Thereafter on 27-3-2006 impugned order was passed. The appellant herein was never intimated preponement of the date or hearing of the case by the Additional Commissioner. The aforesaid act of Commissioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice and Rule 9 of the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995.

(3.) THAT before the Commissioner, the revision itself was not maintainable under the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, only one appeal has been provided before the Sub Divisional Officer, thereafter the order could have been challenged by filing a revision before the Collector and thereafter no second revision could have been filed in the matter. The respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the sub Divisional Officer, which was dismissed. Thereafter though a second appeal before the Collector, which was not maintainable, but the Collector considered the case on merits and dismissed the appeal, which can be treated as a revision before the Collector but thereafter no revision was maintainable before the Commissioner.