KASHI PRASAD KEVAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents whereby they have issued a notice to the petitioner on 31.05.2019 (Annexure-P/8) asking him to submit his reply as to why a n amount of Rs.1,75,000/- be not recovered from him under the provisions of Section 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 [hereinafter 'the Adhiniyam, 1993'].

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the said order mainly on the ground that the authority has not followed the mandatory requirement and not issued any notice to the petitioner under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and directly jumped to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- is to be recovered from him, whereas Section 89 provides as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on this point, this Court in the case of Roshan Nargave & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others , 2017 3 MPLJ 73, has held that the authority cannot proceed under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 unless the requirement of Section 89 is fulfilled.