MP High Court Seeks Report On Functioning Of District Judge Who Passed 'Cryptic' Order Ignoring Provisions Of Statute

A single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed, “Had learned 4th District Judge strained himself to read the provisions under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, such cryptic order would not have been passed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 being cryptic, is set aside. The matter is remitted to concerned District Judge to decide the application on its own merits within a further period of thirty days.”

The petition was filed aggrieved by a District Court order refusing to entertain an application under Section 64 of the Act, only on the ground that Collector has not made reference and in absence of the same, petition is not maintainable.

The provision stipulates that any interested person who has not accepted the award may require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Authority. The Collector has to then make a reference to the appropriate Authority within 30 days failing which, the applicant may apply to the Authority.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had approached the appropriate authority only after the Collector failed to act on his representation within 30 days. “This application could not have been dismissed only on the ground that the Collector had not made a reference.”, it said.

The Court further noted that the application was filed before the Collector within six weeks of intimation given under Section 37 (2) of the Act and, therefore, the District Judge failed to read the provision contained in Section 64 and passed a cryptic order.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to concerned District Judge to decide the application.

Case Title: Mangalsharan Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 9548 Of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order