Being An Elected Panchayat Member Does Not Give Right To Seek Departmental Action Against Employee: MP HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a writ petition filed by an elected Janpad Panchayat member who wanted authorities directed to act on his complaints against a government employee, holding that being an elected representative and submitting representations does not, by itself, give a person the right to seek action against that employee through a writ of mandamus.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order on September 29 in Lalaram Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, observing that the petitioner had failed to show any enforceable legal right of his own that had been infringed.

The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, was directed against the alleged inaction of respondent No. 3 in not considering a representation submitted by the petitioner. It alleged irregularities and illegalities on the part of respondent No. 5, who is stated to be working as Assistant Block Manager/Assistant Livelihood Manager in the concerned Panchayat.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Surya Kumar Patel told the court that the petitioner is an elected member of the concerned Janpad Panchayat and had submitted various representations raising allegations about respondent No. 5's functioning. These included the removal of members of Self Help Groups, financial irregularities and misappropriation of public funds.

It was further submitted that respondent No. 5 had been transferred to Block Shahnagar but continued to remain at Block Ajaygarh, and that his uncle was also posted in the same Panchayat as Mission Officer. According to the petitioner, no action was taken by the competent authority despite repeated representations, forcing him to approach the High Court.

Opposing the plea, Government Advocate Vijayendra Singh Choudhary, appearing for the State, argued that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the petition. He submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed the infringement of any personal or legally enforceable right.

The State also contended that the grievances essentially concerned the service posting and functioning of respondent No. 5, along with alleged irregularities in implementing government schemes. Such issues, it argued, gave the petitioner no independent cause of action to invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

After hearing both sides, the court sided with the State, first recalling when a writ of mandamus can be issued. "It is a well settled principle of law that a writ of mandamus ordinarily lies for enforcement of a legal right and corresponding public/statutory duty," the court observed.

A petitioner seeking such a writ, the court explained, must establish a legally enforceable right and a corresponding duty cast upon the respondent authority. Applying this test, it found the petitioner's case wanting. "In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated any enforceable legal right of his own which has been infringed by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents," the order stated.

The court then turned to the petitioner's position as a public representative. Finding that this status alone was not enough, it held, "The fact that the petitioner is an elected member of the Janpad Panchayat and has submitted representations regarding the functioning of an employee does not, by itself, confer a right upon him to seek a writ of mandamus for initiating departmental action against such employee."

Finally, the court said, "Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference." It then dismissed the writ petition as "devoid of merits and substance."

Case Title: Lalaram Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Order Date: September 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh