Ram Lakhan Rawat Vs State of M.P. and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

S.S. Jha, J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.1997 passed by the Collecton. Morena in revision (Annexure P/6) The revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional-officer in appeal and quashed the appointment of the Petitioner as Panchayat Karmi

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order Annexure P/6 passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction. u/s 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter, referred to as the Adhiniyam") remedy of either appeal or revision is available. He submitted that the order of the revisional Court is without jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that even otherwise, resolution passed by the panchayat is neither appealable nor revisable under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Therefore, the appeal before the Sub-Divisional-Officer was not competent. He further submitted that since the appeal itself was not maintainable, therefore, any order in revision is without jurisdiction and the entire proceedings culminating into revision deserve to be quashed

Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in the light of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Karon Singh Tomar v. Janpad Panchayat, Porsa and Ors. M.C.C. No. 72/1999 decided on 4.5.1999 at Gwalior after appeal, revision is maintainable.

Section 91 of the Adhiniyam is reproduced below:

91 Appeal and revision:

An appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under this Act. shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed.

Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Tek Chand Bhatia, interpreting the term "or" and submitted that the word ''or'' is normally read to be disjunctively. This judgment relates to Section 2(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where the word ''or'' used in the definition of words "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption'', is interpreted that the word ''or'' is to be read disjunctively.

Counsel for the Petitioner then relied upon the judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Shibani Engineering Systems, Bombay, . and submitted that plain and ordinary meaning should be drawn; the words are to be intrepreted from the plain language whether the words are conjunctive or disjunctive.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that revision after appeal is not maintainable .

Shri R.D. Jain. Sr. Advocate, appeared as amicus curiae and argued the case at length. He stressed upon the word "or" and submitted that on plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhimyam, the word or'' is used which is disjunctive and by no stretch of imagination it would be read as conjunctive.

On a bare reading of the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhimyam, it is apparent that only one revision will lies rules if any, framed under the Adhinyam cannot be in excess of the powers conferred under the Adhmiyam.

11 Shri R.G. Jam. referred to a judgment in the case of Renin Bat v. Baldeoraj 1981 MPRCJ 21. In this case, the provisions of Section 31 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 were considered and the meaning of the word ''order'' is determined. The word ''order'' is interpreted as "which affects the rights and liabilities of the parties''.

Shri R.D. Jam further Submitted that if the rules are contrary to the Act then they cannot be read beyond the powers conferred under the Act. He referred to a judgment in the case of Sri Ganganagar Urban Co-opertive Bank Ltd. Vs. Prescribed Authority and others, and submitted that whenever there is a conflict in the provisions of the rules and an Act of the legislature, the Act shall prevail. Learned Counsel submitted that the rules are to be construed harmoniously with the provisions of the Act.

Shri Jam then referred to the judgment in the case of Employees Stale Insurance Co. v. State 1963 JLJ 370 wherein the question of limitation was considered In this case the Act prescribed period of limitation for proceedings u/s 74 of the Employecs State Insurance Act, whereas the rules cannot prescribe the period of limitation; it was held that the rules cannot override the Act Then he referred to another judgment in the case of Corporation of Calcutta and Another Vs. Liberty Cinema, and submitted that the interpretation of the rules should be according to the Act and the rules should be construed in the light of statutory scheme

Shri Jain then further referred to the judgment in the case of Sri Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and submitted that when there are plain and unambiguous words in the statute, no other interpretation can be made.

S/Shri Arun Mishra. Arvind Dudawat and Jitendra Maheshwan. Advocates also appeared to assist the Court and addressed their contentions.

It was submitted that in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Shri Gokal Chand, it was held that the proceedings arc not appealable. In this case, the question was whether appeal lies against the order, and it was held that an appeal will lie against the order

Shri Arun Mishra. Advocate submitted that appeal is not a vested right; its a creature of the statute

Rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-section (I) of Section 95 read with Section 91 of the Adhiniyam. known as Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter, referred to as the ''Rules''), from a bare perusal of the Rules, it is apparent that the proceedings of the officers subordinate alone are amenable to revisional jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the proceedings of the Panchavat are neither appealable nor revrsable. Learned Counsel for the parties further submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the M.C.C. No. 72/49 referred above needs reconsideration as the Division Bench has considered the Rules only and not the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam. therefore, the decision needs reconsideration by the Larger Bench.

Shri K.N. Gupta, Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents-State submitted that Section 91 of the Adhiniyam only provides for the procedure of appeal or revision. He invited attention to the heading of Section 91 which is "Appeal and revision". It provides that an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchyat and other authorities under this Act. shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed.

Considered the argunents.

On bare reading of Section 91 of the Adhmiyam, it is apparent that it relates to appeal and revision. On going through the Rules, it transpires that appeal or revision against the order under this Act shall lie in such manner as may be prescribed Thus appeal or revision shall be filed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Legislature It. is neither disjunctive nor conjunctive, but it provides that appeal or revision shall lie in such manner as may be prescribed. The plain and simple meaning is that appeal or revision shall lie according to the Rules.

Rule 3 of the Rules provides for filing an appeal against a particular order and Rule 5 provides for revision against the orders or proceedings of the officers subordinate to the revisional authority. Thus, the appeallate orders will be revisable. The Division Bench of this Court in the MCC No. 72/99 referred above considering the scope of Rule 5 of the Rules, has held as under:

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously urged that in view of the second proviso to Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 framed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchavat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 no revision law against the order passed by the appellate authority disposing of an appeal. It has been urged that feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Janpad Panchavat the Petitioner has filed an appeal which had been disposed of by the Collector which was challenged in writ petition and. therefore, since the appellate authority had disposed of the appeal, no revision lay in view of the proviso to the effect that no application for revision shall be entertained against an order appealable under the Act.

The second proviso of Rule 5 of the Rules referred to hereinabove contemplates that no revision was to be entertained in case the remedy of appeal was available which had not been exhausted. The legislative intent behind the aforesaid proviso appears to be that an applicant could not by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Rules.

It is obvious that without availing the remedy of appeal, the applicant could not approach the revising authority. In the present case, the Petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal but had remained unsuccessful

In the facts and circumstances, there was no impediment in approaching the revising authority and seeking redressal of the grievance.

In view of the decision of the Division Bench, remedy of revision is available to the Petitioner after the appeal is decided under the Appeal and Revision Rules.

Rules 3 and 5 in Hindi are reproduced below:

3- vihy rFkk vihyh izkf/kdkjh & vf/kfu;e ;k mlds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa ;k mifof/k;ksa esa vU;Fkk micaf/kr ds flok;] dksbZ vihy &

�d� vf/kfu;e ;k mlds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa ;k mifof/k;ksa ds fdlh micU/k ds v/khu mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fdlh vkns� ds ekeys esa && dysDVj dks (

�[k� vf/kfu;e ;k mlds v/khu cuk x, fu;eksa ;k mifof/k;ksa ds fdlh mica/k ds v/khu dysDVj }kjk ikfjr fdlh vkns� ds ekeys esa && vk;qDr dks (

�x� vk;qDr ;k lapkyd] ikapk;r }kjk ikfjr fdlh vkns� ds ekeys esa && jkT; ljdk dks]

�?k� uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye �1� esa fofufnZ"V dh xbZ iapk;r }kjk ikfjr fdlh vkns� ds ekeys esa mlds dkye �2� esa rRlFkkuh izfof"V esa fofufnZ"V izkf/kdkjh dks] dh tk,xh A

Lkj.kh

�1�                          �2�
�d� xzke iapk;r              mi[k.M vf/kdkjh
�[k� tuin iapk;r             dysDVj
�x� ftyk iapk;r              vk;qDr

5- iqujh{k.k && �1� �d� jkT; ljdkj vk;qDr] iapk;r lapkyd] dysDVj viuh Loisj.kk ls ;k fdlh Hkh i{kdkj ds vkosnu ij ;k fdlh Hkh le; mlds v/khuLfk izkf/kdkjh }kjk fd;s x;s vkns� dh oS/krk ;k vkSfpR; ds laca/k eas ;k dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh fu;ferrk ds laca/k eas viuk Lo;a dk lek/kku djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ,sls izkf/kdkjh ds le{k yafcr ;k mdls }kjk fuiVk, x, fdlh Hkh ekeys dk vfHkys[k eaxok ldsxk vkSj mldh tkap dj ldsxk rFkk mlds lanHkZ esa ,slk vkns� ns ldsxk] tSlk og mfpr le>s %

ijUrq og dksbZ Hkh vkns� rc rd ikfjofrZr ;k myV ugha djsxk tc rd fgrc) i{kdjksa dks lwpuk u ns nh xbZ gks vkSj mUgsa lquokbZ dk volj u fn;k x;k gks %

ijUrq ;g vkSj Hkh f dbl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vihy ;ksX; fdlh vkns� ds fo#) iqujh{k.k ds fy, dksbZ vkosnu xzg.k ugha fd;k tk,xk A

�[k� fdlh i{kdkj dk iqujh{k.k ds fy;s vkosnu dsoy rHkh xzg.k fd;k tk,xk ;fn og fof/k iz''u dk gS u fd rF;ksa dk A

�2� mifu;e �1� eas vurfoZ"V fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh &&

�,d� tgka mifu;e �1� ds v/khu jkT; ljdkj }kjk fdlh ekeys ds lEcU/k esa dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dj nh xbZ gks ogka mlds lEcU/k eas mDr mifu;e esa of.kZr vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk,xh] vkSj

�nks� tgka mifju;e �1� eas of.kZr vf/kdkjh }kjk fdlh ,sls ekeys ds lEcU/k eas dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dj nh xbZ gks ogka jkT; ljdkj ,sls ekeys ds lEcU/k esa bl fu;e ds v/khu rc rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djsxh tc rd fd ,sls vf/kdkjh }kjk ,slh dk;Zokgh dk vafre fuiVkjk u dj fn;k x;k gks ;k ,slh dk;Zokgh okil u ys yh xbZ gks ;k ,slk vkns�] tSlk f dog mfpr le>s] ikfjr u dj fn;k x;k gks A

Thus Rule 3 of the Rules provides for appeal and appellate Authority. It also provides for the Authorities which are competent to hear the appeals. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for powers of revision by the State Government. Commissioner. Director of Panchayat and Collector on an application or suo motu about the legality or propriety of any order or proceeding of any officer subordinate to them. Thus any order passed in appeal is amenable to revision under Rule 5. Limitation for filing revision is provided under Rule 6 Rule 7 provides for nature of application for appeal or revision.

Shri Arun Mishra, Adv, appearing as amicus curiae submitted that these Rules do not provide for remedy against resolutions of panchayat.

Original Section 91 of the Adhiniyam in Hindi is reproduced below:

91- vihy vkSj iqujh{k.k && bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu iapk;rksa ds rFkk vU; izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns�ksa ;k dk;Zokfg;ksa ds fo#) vihy ;k iqujh{k.k ,sls izkf/kdkjh dks rFkk jhfr esa gksxk tSlk fofgr fd;k tk, A

Thus, this section provides that orders and Proceedings of Panchayat and other officers shall be appealable or revisable before the Authorities according to the mode prescribed by the Government. The Hindi text of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam though mentions for appeal or revision against the proceedings of Panchayat, but in the Rules, no procedure is prescribed.

By Notification No. 1281-216-XX-CC dated 1st June. 1963 the official language of the State of Madhya Pradesh is declared as ''Hindi'' u/s 4 of the Madhya Pradesh official Language Act, 1957. The items specified in the schedule to the aforesaid Notification viz. (a) All bills to be introduced or amendment there to be moved, in each House of the State Legislature; (b) All acts passed by each House of the State Legislature; (c) All ordinances Promulgated under Article 231 of the Constitution of India and (d) All orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution of India or under any law made by the parliament or the Legislature of the State, shall be in Hindi. Thus all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws, issued by the State Government under Constitution of India or under any law made by the Parliament or the Legislature of the State shall be in the official Language that is ''Hindi".

This law has been laid down in the case of Satyabhan Singh Jadon Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another,

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the text in Hindi is the original text and Rules framed under the Hindi text of Acts should be relied upon

Rules framed u/s 91 of the Adhiniyam in Hindi text do not provide any remedy of appeal or revision against the proceedings of the Panchayat. Under the rules any order passed by Gram Panchayats in pursuance of the resolutions is appealable and no revision is maintainable against the proceedings of panchayat. I am fortified in my view from the judgment in the case of Ramnath Kaushik v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1999 (1) JLJ 146. The question as to ''Resolution'' or ''order was also considered by this Court in the case of Ram Charan Ahirwar v. Sub Divisional Officer, Jalara 1998 (2) JLJ 267.

On considering that intent of the Legislature, the Legislature has not empowered the Authorities to cancel or set aside any resolution of Panchayat in appeal or revision. Section 85 of the Adhiniyam provides for suspension of execution of any resolution passed. For this purpose, Section 84 of the Adhiniyam provides for inspection of works of Panchayats. Rules framed for inspection of works of Panchayats are known as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Inspection of Proceedings) Rules, 1995. Under Rule 3(2)(-a) of the aforesaid Rules on receiving complaint- in the case of a Gram Panchayat, the Panchayat and Social Education Organizer the Sub-Divisional-Officer in whose jurisdiction the Gram Panchayat falls is empowered to inspect the proceedings and works of Panchayat. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules relates to power of Inspecting Officer. Rule 5 Provides for inspection report However, if inspection is given to any officer subordinate to Collector as may be nominated by the Collector, the report shall be furnished to the officer or Authority directing inspection. After the report, if it is felt that the resolution or execution of resolution deserves to be suspended, then orders u/s 85 of the Adhiniyam can be passed. Sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Adhiniyam provides that the Authority passing any order under Sub-section (1). shall forthwith and in no case later than ten days from the date of order, forward to the State Government or the officer nominated by the State Government for this purpose, copy of the order with the statement of reasons for making it. and the State Government or the officer nominated by it may confirm, set aside, revise or modify the order or direct that it shall continue to be in force with or without modification permanently or for such period as may be deemed fit. It further provides that no order of the prescribed authority passed under Sub-section (1) shall be confirmed, set aside, revised or modified by the State Government or the officer nominated by it without giving the Panchayat concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed order

Thus from the intent of the Adhiniyam. no powers are conferred upon the authorities for cancelling the resolution in a proceeding u/s 91 of the Adhiniyam. However, any order passed by the Authority under Sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Adhiniyam which is subordinate to the officers mentioned in Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayats Appeal and Revision Rules, the order shall be appealable and thereafter revision shall lie against the appellate order.

From the scheme of the Adhiniyam, it is apparent that any resolution passed by Panchayat is neither appealable nor revisable Resolutions of Panchayats cannot be set aside. However, orders passed by Panchayats shall be appealable under Rule 3 of the Rules and after order in appeal, it shall be revisable under Rule 5 of the Rules

As discussed above, the Sub-Divisional-Officer had no powers to hear appeal against the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Since the appeal itself, was incompetent, therefore, the appellate order Annexure P/7 is without jurisdiction and is quashed. Any revision against the order without jurisdiction is also without jurisdiction. Therefore, the order Annexure P/6 is quashed as without jurisdiction. However, the Authorities are free to initiate action under Sections 84 and 85 of the Adhiniyam

The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate and S/Shri Arun Mishra. Arvind Dudawat and Jitendra Maheshwan. Advocates.

In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders Annexures P/6 and P/7 arc quashed. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.