Lalla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
1 WA-427-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 15 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 427 of 2025
SURAJ AGARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Amrit Lal Gupta - Advocate for respondent No.3 to 5.
Dr. S. S. Chouhan - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 455 of 2025
LALLA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for appellant.
Dr. S. S. Chouhan - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal J.
The issue invovled in these writ appeal are common, thus they are
being decided by this common order. For the sake of convienance, the facts
of Writ Appeal Appeal No.427/2025 are being taken.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
2 WA-427-2025
This Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh

UchchaNyayalay (KhandPeethKo Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises from the
order dated 04.02.2025 passed in W.P. No. 3429/2025, whereby the learned
Single Judge relegated the appellants to an alternative remedy against a
recovery order dated 03.01.2025 passed under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam,
1993.
2. The facts, in brief, indicate that the appellants were subjected to a
recovery of Rs. 4,00,940/- by respondent No. 3, who acted as the Additional
Collector (Development)/CEO, ZilaPanchayat. It is the contention of the
appellants that respondent No. 3 lacks the statutory competence to exercise
the powers of "Prescribed Authority" under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam,
1993, and that the recovery order is substantively perverse. Section 89 of the
Adhiniyam, 1993 explicitly states: "Any person who is or has been a Panch,
Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch, member, office-bearer or servant of a Panchayat
shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other
property belonging to the Panchayat, if such loss, waste or misapplication is
a direct consequence of his negligence, misconduct or breach of trust."
3. It is a fundamental principle that the "Prescribed Authority" tasked
with this determination must be an officer specifically notified by the State
Government under Section 2(xxi) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The record fails
to demonstrate that respondent No. 3 possesses such specific notification. An
order passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction is coram non judice
and void ab initio. As held by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1, the existence of an alternative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
3 WA-427-2025
remedy is not a bar where the order is passed without jurisdiction or in

violation of natural justice.
4. Furthermore, the impugned recovery order is inherently flawed.
Section 89 mandates that the authority must inquire into the loss caused by
negligence, misconduct, or breach of trust. The record reveals that the
appellants executed the work based on estimates and measurements prepared
by the Public Works Department (PWD). When a work is executed at
government sanctioned rates, a subsequent allegation of "misapplication"
cannot be sustained without a clear finding of personal pecuniary gain or
criminal intent. The impugned order, by mechanically ordering the recovery
of the entire project cost, has failed to differentiate between administrative
irregularity and actual financial loss.
5. The law requires that liability be apportioned based on individual
role and evidence of negligence. The recovery of the entire amount as a joint
and equal liability without conducting a rigorous fact finding inquiry is an
exercise of power that is arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the proviso to
Section 89, which mandates a "reasonable opportunity of being heard." The
authority has acted in a vacuum, ignoring the essential requirement to
quantify the actual loss caused to the Panchayat, rather than simply
penalizing the cost of the project itself.
6. The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules,
1995 provide for the competent authority and the appellate authority to pass
appropriate orders. However, there is no provision under the said Rules, nor
any notification issued thereunder, authorizing the Additional Collector to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
4 WA-427-2025
pass any order regarding the misconduct of a Sarpanch or the Secretary of a

Gram Panchayat. The competent authority for such matters is the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue) having jurisdiction over the concerned
subdivision. The relevant provision, namely Rule 3 of the Rules, is
reproduced below:
3. Appeal and appellate authorities. -Save where it has been otherwise
provided in the Act-or rules ‘or byelaws made thereunder, an appeal shall be,
(a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under any
provision of the Act or rules or byelaws made “there under-to the Collector. '
(b) in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the
Act or rules or bye laws made thereunder-to the Commissioner.(c) in the
case of an order passed by the Commissioner or Director of Panchayats-to
the State Government..(d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat
specified in Column (1) of the Table below-to the authority specified in the
corresponding entry in column (2) thereto.
TABLE
(1) (2)
(a) Gram Panchayat Sub-Divisional Officer.
(b) Janapad Panchayat Collector.
(c) Zila Panchayat' Commissioner
7. The provision of The M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993 are also relevant to resolve the dispute, the relevant
provision reproduce here-
59. Powers of Janpad Panchayat to turn, divert, discontinue or close roads. -
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
5 WA-427-2025
A Janpad Panchayat may, with the sanction of the prescribed authority, turn,

divert, discontinue or permanently close any road which is under the control
and administration of, or is vested in the Janpad Panchayat.
(ix) "Janpad Panchayat" means a Janpad Panchayat established under
sub-section (2) of Section 10;
(x) "Local Authority" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in
the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1957 (No. 3 of 1958);
88. Inquiry into affairs of Panchayat. - The State Government may,
from time to time, cause an inquiry to be made by any of its officers in
regard to any Panchayat on matters concerning it or to any matter with
respect to which the sanction, approval, consent or order of the State
Government is required by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder or
under any law for the time being in force.
89. Liability of Panch etc. for loss, misappropriation. - (1) Every
Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat [or Gram
Nirman Samiti and Gram VikasSamiti] [or Committee of Gram Sabha] shall
he personally liable for loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other
property of the Panchayat [or Gram NirmanSamiti and Gram Vikas Samiti]
[or Committee of Gram Sabha] to which he has been a party or which has
been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The
amount required for reimbursing such loss, waste, or misapplication shall be
recovered by the prescribed authority :
Provided that no recovery shall be made under this section unless the
person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
6 WA-427-2025
(2) If the person concerned fails to pay the amount, such amount shall

he recovered as arrears of land revenue and credited to the funds of the
Panchayat [or Gram NirmanSamiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] [or Committee
of Gram Sabha] concerned.
8. Upon going through the above provision, we are of the considered
view that the Collector or the Additional Collector has no power to inquire
into matters relating to the Janpad Panchayat. They are only the appellate
authority. The competent authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer of the
concerned Panchayat or any authority specially empowered by the State to
inspect the work of the Janpad Panchayat. In the present case, the Additional
Collector passed the impugned order without jurisdiction.
9. The "Local Authority" under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram
Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 has no power to inquire into matters relating to the
Gram Panchayat because there is a specific provision under Rule 3 of the
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995.
10. Vide letter No. 36/24-25 dated 22.10.2024, the Gram Panchayat
requested the Sub Divisional Officer to issue an estimate and technical
sanction for the installation of street lights. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Shahdol, along with the PWD Engineer, issued the technical sanction along
with the estimate dated 06.11.2024, in which the name of the contractor was
mentioned as Sadguru Sai Infera World Private Limited. This clearly
indicates that the work order was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Shahdol. Pursuant to the said sanction, the Gram Panchayat issued the work
order to the agency. Thereafter, the work completion certificate was issued
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
7 WA-427-2025
by the Sub-Divisional Officer along with his team, including the PWD

Engineer, certifying that the work had been completed in accordance with
the prescribed specifications.
11. The Additional Collector, observed in the impugned order that
the work was not carried out in accordance with the specifications prescribed
by the Energy Department and that the work order had not been issued in
accordance with the Government Purchase Rules. However, all sanctions
were granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotma, who was the competent
authority. Therefore, it was the Sub-Divisional Officer alone who was
competent to initiate the inquiry and not the Additional Collector.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Additional Collector is without
jurisdiction.
12. Vide letter dated 01.01.2025, the District Energy Officer
informed the Collector that he had not installed the solar lights and,
therefore, was not in a position to comment on the quality of the solar lights
installed in the Gram Panchayat. He merely forwarded the rate list of the
solar lights. Despite this, the Additional Collector concluded that the work
was not carried out in accordance with the specifications, even though the
District Energy Officer had never commented on the quality of the work
executed by the agency. Further, by letter dated 31.12.2024, the CEO, Zila
Panchayat, Anuppur, sought a specification report from the District Energy
Officer, but he was unable to furnish the same. Thus, there was no report
indicating that the solar lights installed by the agency were of inferior
quality, nor was there any report regarding any difference between the rates
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52521
8 WA-427-2025
quoted by the agency and those of the District Energy Department. It is

noteworthy that the work order had been sanctioned by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Kotma. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how the Gram
Panchayat could be held guilty for issuing the work order pursuant to the
approval granted by the competent authority, namely, the Sub-Divisional
Officer.
13. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The order dated
04.02.2025 and the recovery order dated 03.01.2025 are hereby set aside.
14. In the above terms, WRIT APPEAL No. 455 of 2025 is also
disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37