JABALPUR, India, Nov. 19 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Oct. 27:

1. The petitioner has filed subject petition styled as Public Interest Litigation challenging the action of respondent No.7 and 8 i.e. the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Ichoul, Janpad Panchayat Uchehara, District Satna contending that they are illegally constructing a Panchayat Bhawan at a distance about 3-4 km from the Gram Panchayat and are encroaching upon the government land. It is also contended that the existing Panchayat Bhawan is in a good condition and there is no necessity to change the Panchayat Bhawan. There is also allegation of misappropriation and favouritism in award of contract to the contractor for constructing the new Panchayat Bhawan.

2. State has filed response to the petition categorically stating that a proposal was received for construction of new Panchayat Bhawan which was considered by the competent authority and sanction has been granted for construction of new Panchayat Bhawan and in the existing building Lokseva Kendra is running for providing citizen services to the villagers as well as other visitors.

3. It is disputed in the counter affidavit that new building is being constructed on a cremation ground. It is stated that the construction is being carried out in a separate portion of the said khasra which is being earmarked for construction of new Panchayat Bhawan and area of Shamshan is separate and there is no encroachment on the Shamshan Bhumi. Further it is contended that award of contract for raising construction of new Panchayat Bhawan has been followed by a tender process and there is no infraction in the same.

4. Keeping in view the specific counter affidavit filed by the respondent stating that due consideration has been given to a request received for construction of new Panchayat Bhawan and the same has been duly approved by the competent authority and award of contract for construction has been done by following a due process of law, we are of the view that no interference is warranted by way of the subject public interest litigation and there is no public interest involved in the same.

5. In view of the above, no further orders are called for in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.