The Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored the procedural safeguards under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, staying coercive action against petitioners where recovery proceedings under Section 92 were initiated without completing the mandatory preliminary proceedings under Section 89. The judgment reaffirms that administrative actions must adhere to statutory procedures to ensure fairness and legality.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Shatrughan Singh Gurjar and Others, are aggrieved by an order dated 29.06.2026 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. The impugned order directed each petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,47,333 without conducting a proper enquiry or affording an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Facts
A notice under Section 89 of the Act was issued to the petitioners on 17.02.2025, to which a detailed reply was submitted.
Without considering the reply, respondent No. 2 issued another notice under the same provision on 18.06.2026.
The petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2 on 25.06.2026, but no evidence was recorded, no enquiry was conducted, and no adequate hearing was afforded.
The impugned order dated 29.06.2026 directed recovery of Rs. 2,47,333 from each petitioner under Section 92.
Procedural History
17.02.2025: Notice under Section 89 issued to petitioners.
18.06.2026: Second notice under Section 89 issued without considering the earlier reply.
25.06.2026: Petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2.
29.06.2026: Impugned order passed under Section 92 directing recovery.
10.07.2026: Present writ petition (WP No. 26626 of 2026) filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 and a stay on coercive action pursuant to the order, contending that the proceedings violate principles of natural justice and statutory procedure.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether recovery proceedings under Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 can be initiated without completing the preliminary proceedings under Section 89, including affording a proper opportunity of hearing and conducting an enquiry.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The impugned order was passed without recording evidence, conducting an enquiry, or affording an adequate opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The action is contrary to the decision in Ram Lakhan Singh Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (W.P. No. 9459/2020), where a Coordinate Bench of the High Court held that recovery proceedings under Section 92 cannot be initiated without completing proceedings under Section 89.
For the Respondent/State
The judgment does not record specific arguments advanced by the respondent/State.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioners had submitted a detailed reply to the notice issued under Section 89 on 17.02.2025, but respondent No. 2 failed to consider it before issuing another notice on 18.06.2026. The impugned order under Section 92 was passed without conducting any enquiry or affording a proper hearing, raising serious concerns about procedural fairness.
The Court relied on the precedent in Ram Lakhan Singh Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, which established that recovery proceedings under Section 92 cannot be initiated without completing the preliminary proceedings under Section 89. The judgment underscores that administrative actions must comply with statutory procedures to ensure legality and fairness.
"Initiation of recovery proceedings under Section 92 without culmination of proceedings under Section 89 is legally impermissible."
The Verdict
The Court issued notice to the respondents, subject to payment of process fee within seven working days by Registered Acknowledgment Due (RAD) mode, returnable within four weeks. By way of interim relief, the Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 until the next date of hearing. The matter is listed for further consideration after four weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
Administrative authorities must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements under the statute. Section 89 proceedings must be completed before initiating recovery under Section 92.
Failure to conduct an enquiry or afford a hearing before passing an order under Section 92 renders the action vulnerable to judicial challenge.
Natural Justice Must Be Upheld
The judgment reaffirms that principles of natural justice are inherent in administrative proceedings. Authorities cannot bypass the opportunity of hearing or evidence recording.
Practitioners should argue that any order passed in violation of these principles is liable to be set aside.
Precedent as a Shield
The decision in Ram Lakhan Singh Gurjar serves as a binding precedent. Authorities cannot disregard Coordinate Bench judgments when initiating recovery proceedings.
Petitioners can rely on this judgment to challenge similar orders where Section 89 proceedings were not completed.
