MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON MANOJ KUMAR VISHWAKARMA V/S HE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, Dec. 9 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Nov. 10:

1. Appellant impugns order dated 06.10.2025 whereby order dated 11.10.2007 has been set aside. Respondent No.4 had filed the subject writ petition challenging an order dated 11.10.2007 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer had cancelled the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 07.09.2007 whereby the respondent No.4 was appointed as Panchayat Karmi.

2. As per the appellant, he had filed a complaint challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Panchayat Karmi by order dated 07.09.2007. When the complaint was placed before the Sub Divisional Officer, the SDO cancelled the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.4 filed the subject petition contending that Section 85 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam, 1993" ) empowered the SDO to suspend an order and refer it to the competent authority for further orders and he had no power to himself cancel the order.

3. Learned Single Judge appreciating Section 85 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 came to the conclusion that the SDO could not have passed an order cancelling the resolution and at best could have suspended it and refer the matter to the higher authorities. Since the SDO had exceeded its jurisdiction, the impugned order has been set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that apart from setting aside the said order, the Court also directed that respondent No.4 be reinstated forthwith. He submits that on date of the disposal of the objection, by order dated 10.07.2007, respondent No.4 had not been given any joining.

5. This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 who submits that respondent No.4 was already working as on the date the order was passed.

6. Insofar as the finding of learned Single Judge is concerned with regard to the power of the SDO to merely suspend an order and refer it to the higher authorities, there is no dispute inter se the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent No.4.

7. In view of the admitted position that the SDO could not have cancelled the order but could have only suspended it, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge insofar as setting aside of the order dated 11.07.2007 is concerned. The dispute now pertains to the direction with regard to reinstatement of respondent No.4 forthwith. The consequence of setting aside of the order dated 11.10.2007 is that the status as obtaining immediately preceding the order i.e. 10.10.2007 stands restored.

8. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal directing that the status as obtaining on 10.10.2007 qua respondent No.4 be restored i.e. if respondent No.4 had been given a joining, then respondent No.4 be permitted to join forthwith if no joining had been given before that date, then the same status shall be maintained till the Complaint is decided by the Competent Authority. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. It would be open to the respondents authorities to consider the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with law. Since respondent No.4 has raised an objection as to maintainability of the Complaint, it is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the validity of the complaint filed by the appellant and the same shall be examined by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. The competent authority shall take a decision on the complaint filed by the appellant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 60 days from today in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated on merits in this order.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.