SANTOSH PAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner states that he is a student residing in Ward No. 10, Tahsil Bhainsdehi, District Betul. By the instant petition, the order dated 08/03/19 (Annexure P/1) has been challenged. Annexure P/1 is on page No. 13 of the petition. By the said order, the Administrator of the Municipal Council, was replaced by an Administrative Committee of five persons appointed by the state government under the sign and seal of the Under Secretary to the Department of Urban Administration and Housing. Those appointed as members of the Administrative Committee have not been made parties to the petition. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Urban Development and Housing Department is illegal, as the same supersedes an order passed by the State Government under the seal of the Governor dated 25/09/18 by which, the SDO, Bhainsdehi was appointed as the Administrator.

(2.) Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order dated 08/03/19, is illegal in the light of the proviso to Section 328 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, which vests the power to appoint such a Committee only with the State Government and not the Deputy Secretary. This court questioned the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of locus standi of the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the said issue was raised in the first hearing before this Court and only after that, the order dated 08/03/19 was passed. This Court has gone through the said order. It does not reflect that the issue of locus standi was raised and even if it was raised, whether the same was ever considered by this court. The Petitioner has also not made the five members of the Administrative Committee as party to the petition. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that it was not essential as the Petitioner has made the Administrative Committee itself as respondent No. 3 in this case. The Petitioner has challenged the order by which the Administrative Committee was constituted and thereby has questioned the legality of the of appointment of the five members constituting the Administrative Committee, which in effect is claiming the relief of a writ of Quo Warranto. The five members of the Administrative Committee are Mr. Vinay Singh Pathak who is the Chairman of the Administrative Committee, Mr. Rajendra Mahale who is the Vice Chairman and Mr. Yadorao Mohre, Mr. Alkesh Chauhan and Mr. Afroz who are the members of the Administrative Committee. As observed earlier, none of these persons have been arrayed as Respondents to the petition. The primary question that is being decided by this Court is whether a petition seeking a writ of Quo Warranto is essentially in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation and if it is, could such a petition be heard by a Single Judge of this Court?

(3.) As regards the locus standi of the Petitioner to sustain a petition for Quo Warranto, learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 5.2 of the petition, in which the Petitioner has stated that he is a permanent resident of Bhainsdehi under the Municipal Council of Bhainsdehi, District Betul and he proposes to contest the upcoming election to the Municipal Council, therefore any appointment of a private person in the Administrative Committee would adversely affect the interest of the Petitioner in the upcoming election.