SWAKSHTAGRAHI SANGH, JANPAD PANCHAYAT NIWAS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 15 mar 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE 

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH, 

CHIEF JUSTICE 

& 

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV ON THE 15^th OF MARCH, 2022  

WRIT APPEAL No.91 of 2022 

 Between:- 

SWAKSHTAGRAHI SANGH, JANPAD  

PANCHAYAT NIWAS THROUGH ITS  

PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY  

CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI UTTAMLAL  

CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS  

R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT MEHRA  

SEONI, JANPAD PANCHAYAT NIWAS,  

DISTRICT MANDLA (M.P.). 

…..APPELLANT 

 (BY SHRI NITYANAND MISHRA – ADVOCATE) 

AND 

1. UNION OF INDIA, PANCHAYAT RAJ  

SECRETARIATE THROUGH SECRETARY,  

NEW DELHI. 

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,  

PANCHAYAT EVAM GRAMIN VIKAS  

VIBHAG, PANCHAYAT RAJ  

SANCHANALAY, NEAR OFFICE OF  

PROVIDENT FUND, ARERA HILLS (NEAR  

HINDUSTAN PETROL PUMP), BHOPAL,  

DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.). 

– 2 – 

3. THE COLLECTOR MANDLA, DISTRICT  

MANDLA (M.P.). 

4. JILA KARYAKRAM PRABANDHAK  

AJEEVIKA MISSION MANDLA, DISTRICT  

MANDLA (M.P.).  

5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD  

PANCHAYAT NIWAS, DISTRICT MANDLA  

(M.P.).  

….RESPONDENTS 

 (BY SHRI B.D.SINGH – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR  RESPONDENTS AND SHRI BRINDAWAN TIWARI –  ADVOCATE FOR THE INTERVENERS) 

———————————————————————————————– —-  

This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Shri  Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, passed the following:  

ORDER 

This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 17.11.2021,  passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1540 of 2021, whereby,  petition filed by appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.  

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner No.1 claims  to be a Swakshtagrahi Sangh, Janpad Panchayat, Niwas, District Mandla and  petitioner No.2 (in the writ petition) is the member of said Sangh. Appellant petitioner No.1-Sangh has been registered with an object to serve the interest of  its members by maintaining their services as Mobilizers working in the various 

– 3 – 

Gram Panchayats within the area of Janpad Panchayat, Niwas. It is stated that  many Mobilizers have been appointed and discharging their duties without any  complaint, however, in view of certain amendment in the existing instructions,  vide order dated 17.03.2020, the services of all existing Mobilizers have been  discontinued. Therefore, the appellant-petitioner No.1-Sangh has prayed that  the order dated 08.01.2021, whereby, new selection process for appointment on  the post of Mobilizer of Janpad Panchayat, Niwas has been commenced, be set  aside with a further prayer to issue directions to the respondents to continue  them on the said post.  

3. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of this Court in the  matter of Prabhat Vs. Barkatulla University¹ held that firstly, the resolution on  which appellant-petitioner had relied on and the averments made in the petition  do not fulfill the requirement of law for filing the petition and, secondly, in  view of the fact that the members of the petitioner-Sangh were not appointed  by the competent authority, therefore, interference was declined.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that they have filed  a resolution (Annexure A-1) alongwith the list of their members to substantiate  the argument that appellant-petitioner No.1-Sangh was authorized to file the  writ petition.  

¹ 2011 ILR M.P.-1692. 

– 4 – 

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner further submits  that by way of fresh instructions dated 31.12.2020, extra preference has been  given to the persons belonging to a particular category which is not permissible  in law.  

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the  record.  

7. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of Prabhat Vs.  Barkatulla University ¹, has held that a writ petition for enforcement of the  rights of its members, as distinguished from the rights of the Association as a  body, can be filed by the Association acting through its office bearers or  members, whether the Association is registered or unregistered, incorporated or  not, only when the Association can satisfy the Court that if an adverse decision  is given in that petition, all the members of that Association or “Body of  Individuals” will be bound by the decision. It has also been held that if the  same principle is not followed, immediately after adverse decision, any other  members of the said Association may come before the Court in an independent  writ petition saying that he has not been heard and he had not authorized such  Association or office bearer or member to represent him in the litigation.  

8. Therefore, to bind the members by the decision in a litigation brought  before the Court on behalf of such members by any Association, it is necessary 

– 5 – 

that such Association must clearly resolve that who authorized the Association  to file such litigation. The resolution should also mention that the members  will abide any decision rendered in such litigation. In the present case, a  perusal of the resolution clearly shows that the same does not fulfill the  stipulated requirement. Hence, the learned Single Judge has not committed any  error while rejecting the writ petition.  

9. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to adjudicate the rights of  the Mobilizers as to whether they are entitled to continue or whether they have  been appointed or not at the instance of the present appellant. Consequently,  the instant writ appeal is dismissed.  

(RAVI MALIMATH) (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)  CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 

MKL.