MP High Court Slaps ₹50K Cost On Mhow SDO Rakesh Parmar For Ignoring Court Orders, Directs Payment Within Seven Days

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Mhow sub-divisional officer (SDO) Rakesh Parmar for failing to comply with its directions and explain the legal provision under which he had stayed an order in a pending dispute.

Justice Sandeep N Bhatt expressed displeasure over the officer’s conduct, observing that repeated non-compliance reflected “recklessness and irresponsible behaviour” and disregard for the administration of justice.

The court directed Parmar to deposit the amount with the MP State Legal Services Authority within seven days and submit the receipt to the High Court Registry. Failure to do so will prompt the Registry to place a report before the court.

The case, Leelabai and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, concerns a stay granted by Parmar in his capacity as an appellate authority.

On June 24, the court directed the State to file an affidavit specifying the legal provision under which the stay was granted. Despite repeated opportunities, the direction remained unfulfilled.

On September 25, the court noted that the affidavit was still pending and, on October 9, ordered Parmar to appear personally at the next hearing to explain the delay.

Parmar filed an affidavit on October 13, stating that the stay was granted after considering an application and the circumstances of the case, and was limited to the next hearing.

He said it was not continued when the matter came up on June 9, and that a necessary order was passed on July 27 after he learnt of the High Court’s June 24 direction.

However, the court found that the affidavit did not specifically identify the statutory provision authorising the stay, although the attached proceedings referred to Section 52. It also noted that Parmar failed to appear on October 9, claiming he reached the Indore bench after the hearing had concluded.

The court observed that proceedings for wilful defiance could be initiated but chose to impose the monetary cost as a lesson for officers disregarding judicial orders.

The matter will be considered further in the week commencing November 2.