MP HC Quashes Collector’s FIR Directions, Requires Requested Records And 30-Day Replies Before Fresh Decision

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Collector could proceed to pass the impugned orders without first providing the requested documents and considering the petitioners’ responses on the merits

The court held

The petitions were allowed, and both orders dated 03.06.2026 were quashed. The matters were remitted to the Collector, who was directed to provide the requested documents; the petitioners must submit their responses within 30 days of receiving them, and the Collector must pass fresh orders, after affording them an opportunity, within 30 days of submission of the responses

It also directed

The petitioners were directed to appear before the Collector on 18.11.2026; the parties must maintain status quo until fresh orders are passed. The relief will automatically lose efficacy if the petitioners fail to appear and submit a certified copy of the order on that date

01Facts

The petitioners challenged orders dated 03.06.2026 by which the Collector, Jabalpur directed that first information reports be lodged against them under Section 61-D of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993

¶ 2

Before the Collector, the petitioners sought the relevant documents and time to file their responses after examining the records and the officer who had submitted the report. The Collector rejected that request and proceeded without receiving responses on the merits

¶ 6–8

The State objected that the orders were appealable under Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj (Appeal and Revisions) Rules, 1995

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Collector could proceed to pass the impugned orders without first providing the requested documents and considering the petitioners’ responses on the merits

¶ 7–8

ii.2. Whether the petitions should be entertained despite the State’s submission that an appeal was available under Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj (Appeal and Revisions) Rules, 1995

¶ 4

03Law Applied

Section 61-D of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was identified as the provision under which the Collector exercised power

¶ 3

Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj (Appeal and Revisions) Rules, 1995 was relied on by the State to contend that an appeal lay to the Commissioner

¶ 4

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, requiring the petitioners to be given the requested documents and a meaningful opportunity to respond before the Collector reconsidered the matter

¶ 8–9

Provisions in the judgment · 1

M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 Section 61D

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners had appeared before the Collector but had requested the documents before submitting their substantive responses. Because those documents were not made available and the Collector rejected the request, the petitioners’ positions on the merits were not before him when he made the orders

¶ 6–8

The Court therefore held that the Collector should reconsider the matter after supplying the documents and receiving the petitioners’ responses

¶ 8

Although the State raised the availability of an appeal, the Court allowed the petitions without separately analysing or expressly deciding that objection

¶ 4, 9