l::^t '^ u>~ w IN THE IIIG.H COUR'I' OF'%4DHYA ^BABESH AT TABALI Ea'TI'SXOHEB RESPONIEIITS Mt P. SO '<<^g •-AV ^- ^<...C.^^^^-:J Han reu S/o Gh&ndan, csste Ksiar s-ged a'oout $2 ye&rs rasident of %llage Ba-bo Tahsil Gbarghoda distri.ot is8rti * veBsre s <, 1. Gollector ,B2.xga.A • 2, i Ghaslram S/o Bha.inja.r Siiigfa by 'oaste Qa.s&a., i/o Gadg&on, ; taiisil Qharghoda distri.et I&igarh. . BE'a Trt-Ow_yKT)^ABCTGLE_ 22 6/227 OT.VM OOHS'i'ITUTION OF ISIBEA ?OE.A WBI£_Jg_PgaJ3.^UEF__Q5' GSP-'S'RABI^ MAKMHUS. STG. MT) FOR_ £W£S.A.SE_SSTj@_mffi^IOIS liiii iffi'li; [-HC-22 j^ ^iiiido, <?€Rm1s,terray 3T1^T1T=W qrtRTTsRHra? ?Sy»l3L •'••^-•'^S~"200 gn??TSBT •'feltsf; 311^?T ainN7Hf?cf li:' 'aB; sn^TCTgRRdfs^ wifepfrr mTOf ir'fecA rf^R ^.¥tf^!T3ni?T Shri B.D. Swu, counsel f^r the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel (.awyer for respondent No.l. Shri Awadh Tripathi, cou^sel for respondent No.2. The petitioner has preflerred this twrit petition under Article 226/227 ,pf the Consljitutjon of India questioning the ieaaitt^, propriety and correctne^s of the order dated 26 August 1991 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Collector, Raigarh in appeal No.ll/B-121/1990-91 by exercisi^ig the appellat'e power.. Brief facts leading to fili^g of this writ petition are that respondent No.2 moved an applijcation Annexwe-P/2 before the Collector, Raigarh under the pro^isions of A<.P. 6ramm R'm Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982 with the avern^ents that he is the resident of village fiadgaon, Patwar-i Halka NJ6.34, Tehsil ffharghoda that he after taking !oan of Rs.2,700/- fj"om moneylender- Nandau, son of Chand<mkolar pledged omoment^ but thereafter, he retur-ned Rs.1,000/- in cash, two cov»swort|i Rg.2,000/- and one calf valuing Rs.500/-. Thereafter, on 23rd Au^ust 1990 after taking R&600/-, he piedged one buffalo. On 4-9}90, he had returned Rs.700/-. The said Nandau is not returning ^is ornaments and buffaio. He is stili demanding Rs.700/- which is (lot possible for him, therefor-e, be directed to refurn his property. The aaid K m XI-HC-22 W^TTSfiT fiFri^Sil^T aitTR;Hf?CT s^^fm^, s^ws, 'ww»y STI^Tq?^ qroaTaitit^"""""""""""^ 20° ••••••{g^g' .»fl2«lgWIW^rfStT -^- q,rafa*TwRft'^ tecA l^re?T ^si^Tsn^T application was entrufft-ed to th^ S.b.O. by the Collector and aft-er conducting sntyjiry, S.&.O. vid^ order Amexure-P/5 dated 10rtl January 1991 rejected the apj)|jcation on the gr-ound that the provisions of AA.P. $ramin Rin yimukti /Sdhiniyam, 1982 are not attracted in that case and also -fhat appiicant 6hasir-am has failed to prove that he piedged ornjament and Buffaio ufter taking money. Being aggrieved by th I have heard learned coun^ s order ffhasiram prefer'r'ed an appeal beftarethe Collector who ^ide order dat-ed 26th August 1991 allowed the appea! and direct^d thot action be taken against icl for the pari'ies. Learned counse! for the j^etitioner argued that under the provisions of M.P. Sramin Rin Vi^fukti Adhiniyam, 1982 once the S.D.O. passed the order, the |Collector was not entitied to entert-ain the appeal as there is (10 provision of appea! in the Act against the order passed by the a^ithorized officer. On the other hand, Mr. ^ripathi, counsel for respondent No.2 crgued thot as per ruie 6 (af the M.P. Sr'amin Rin Vimukti Niyam, 1984 the Co!!ector was e|itit!ed to entertain the appeal. He furt-her argued that said rule^ has been framed under Section of the M.P. iSramin Rin Vimukti A^hiniyam, 1982. XI-HC-22 3^ aiRRW, SgtW?, fal<'"<)3< qaqfaq^wia'r?f tecArf^R: aisrf^Tsn^r .sartg'l! SStiltSgB Having heard learned ^ounsel for the parties, I have perused the records. I have 4'so perused relevdnit provisions of M.P. Qram'm Rin Vimukt-i Adhikiiyam, 1982. Section 6 of the sm envisaqes that 'the •/ tari~e Sovemment may confef such powers and impose such duties ^n a Collector as may be necessary tp ensure that the provision of\this Act are properly carried out and the ColSec+or may specify ^i officer or officers subordmate to him, who shall exercise all or ^pny of the powers and perforin all or any of the duties so confert^d or imposed and determine the local limits wjthin which such pca^ers or duties shalt be carried out by the officer or officers so dpecified' Therefore, as per the provision of Section 6 of the ]Act, the Collector has aiready authorized S.b.O. to look into |-he complaint of fihasiram and S.D.O. after conducting the enqu ry, rejected the complaint. But, no provision has been made in the |Act about the appeal against the • j order passed by the offjcer aut(iorized by the Collector- under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1982. The argument advanced by counsel for respondent No.2 is that the Collector is entitled -^ entert-ain the appeal under Section 6 of the M.P. Sramin Rin ]Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982 which are ffamed undev Section 8 of|the M.P. Sramin Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982. | —==-= -.t-l.^^^Ite.-t. TifT-H<^-' ^L^-ni-/-- svSssf^i te ^S&Sh S ^^^' liorve 3^ •<l|t(lct<), ®Ti1tl'IS,fiCTtt3< Sll^l MTi^i IWCTI S»*<1<» WS, 200 •Ml^itlSWW^Rd Rule 6 of the M.P. Sramid that 'the Coltectpr shat! exerci^ TOif<-i4^ uwdrffte-A C^wfi ^TSI^TSffiRT Rin Vimukti Niyam, 1984 envisages <e ttil such powers as are necessary for carrying out the provisions bfthe Act.' Rule 6 is similar to the Section 6 of the main Act and Stste Soyernment is entitled t! under Section 6 of the Act the confer powers on the Coliector and second !imb of this Sectijin shows that the Collector may specify an officer or officer^ exercise al! or any of the pow^ duties so conferred or imposej rs and perform all or any of the and determine the local limits in which such powers or d^ties shall be carried out by the officer- or officers so specified. | matter to the S.D.O. for enquir^ the S.b.O. passed the order- after inquiring them, I am of the opinion that the Collector was against such order as no provisjo iules, therefore, the impugned I'uholly without jurisdjction and th^ In the result, the writ pe1 order is sst-aside. C.C. as per Rules. subordinate to him who shall Once the Collector entrusted the as per Section 6 of the Act and not entitled to heor the has been made in the Act or the • ^rder passed by the Collector is same is Jiable to be set aside. ition is allowed and the impugned Sd/. L.C. Bhaduo Judge ,s&^^s^^' ^ws' (qR^?POT) Ull:lll