Bhuvan Singh Kulaste vs Chief Executive Officer Panchayayt Court And Others

Vivek Agarwal, J

Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 10/12/2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandla declaring petitioner to be ineligible for contesting election for a period of six years on account of proceeding for recovery.

A perusal of the record reveals that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07/01/2021 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janapd Panchayat, Narayanganj. According to the petitioner, he had filed reply to such notice as is contained in Annexure-P/2 though it is undated an thereafter without giving him any opportunity and supplying him copy of the order passed in terms of the show cause notice, impugned order has been passed.

After going through the petition as learned counsel for the petitioner is not appearing and is not cooperating with the Court proceedings, it is evident that Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 deals with power to recover records articles and money. Sub-section 4-A of Section 92 provides that case pertaining to recovery of any record or article or money initiated by the prescribed authority shall be disposed of within six months from the date of initiation.

Thereafter Sub-section (5) provides that a person against whom an action is taken under this section shall be disqualified to be member of any Panchayat (or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti (or committee of Gram Sabha) for a period of six years commencing from the initiation of such action.

In the present case, Shri Bhuvan Singh Kulaste, petitioner, admits that he was supplied with order dated 16/2/2021 but has not brought it today. It is evident that an order was passed on 16/2/2021 which has been cleverly suppressed by petitioner and has not been enclosed along with the writ petition though he admits that the said order was passed on 16/2/2021 after giving him an opportunity to show cause vide show cause notice dated 07/01/2021. Therefore, it is evident that there is compliance of Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Thus, petitioner having failed to deposit the amount has earned disqualification as has been provided under sub-section (5) of Section 92 of the Adhiniyam of 1993.

Hence, in light of the law laid down by this High Court in the case of Uttam Singh Vs. Bharatlal Yadav, 2002 (2) of MPLJ 483 , petitioner having faced action under Section 92 is disqualified to be a member of any Panchayat for a period of six years and his nomination papers cannot be accepted, therefore, there is nothing in the writ petition calling for indulgence.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.