Sukhchain Lodhi vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. It directed that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4 (Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dheemerkheda, District Katni) within 15 days from the date of the order, Respondent No. 4 shall decide on the representation within a further period of 60 days. This decision is to be a well-reasoned and speaking order, passed in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the petitioner and the private respondent, Ajay Kumar Lodhi. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion on the merits of the case was expressed and that Respondent No. 4 would decide the representation in his own wisdom.

Facts

The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking various directions against the State and other respondents. These directions included taking time-bound action on an inquiry report dated December 19, 2025, initiating proceedings against Respondent No. 6 for alleged irregularities, examining financial irregularities such as fund transfers, labor payments, procurement issues, and expenditure without Gram Sabha approval. The petitioners also prayed for a special financial audit, a technical/civil audit of construction works, referral of GST-related irregularities to competent GST authorities, preservation of records, and withdrawal or suspension of financial powers of Respondent No. 6. The petitioners alleged defalcation of public funds and submitted that they were complainants, as evidenced by Annexures P/4 and P/5.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take time-bound action on the inquiry report dated 19.12.2025 submitted by the inquiry committee constituted by Zila Panchayat, Katni, and to initiate appropriate proceedings against Respondent No. 6 and others found responsible for irregularities, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that there were numerous complaints against Respondent No. 6 regarding defalcation of public funds and that the competent authority should be directed to decide on the petitioner's grievance within a stipulated period. Respondent's Contention: The State submitted that the petitioner should approach Respondent No. 4, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dheemerkheda, District Katni, who would look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with law.