Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a restoration application, the Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and B.P. Sharma, JJ., directed the applicant’s counsel to visit an Old Age Home with food supplies and spend an hour with the residents instead of paying the cost. The Court remarked that this was a test case to give the concept of “Social Audit” a chance to gain ground.
Background
The present application was filed seeking restoration of a writ appeal which was dismissed due to a peremptory order dated 18 July 2025, passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court.
The applicant contended that the dismissal was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control; therefore, he ought not to be made to suffer irreparable prejudice on account of such unavoidable procedural circumstances.
Analysis
After noting the reasons provided by the applicant, the Court held that they appeared to be genuine and bona fide. Thus, the application was allowed, considering the nature of the cause and bona fide intents as well as the settled law that for the fault of the counsel, the litigant should not be made to suffer.
At this stage, instead of imposing costs, the Court suggested that the applicant’s counsel visit the Old Age Home at Tilwara Ghat, Jabalpur, with some food items/snacks/fruits worth ₹2000, and spend an hour with the residents. This community service, the Court remarked, would not only be satisfying to the soul but would also give a message to the residents that society and its members care for them and they were not left out. However, the Court added that the said suggestion was not punitive, and its compliance was at the discretion of the applicant’s counsel.
The applicant”s counsel readily accepted the suggestion and undertook to do the same.
Appreciating the gesture shown by the applicant’s counsel, the Court directed that the visit shall take place within 15 days, and any Government Advocate or other advocate may also accompany him.
The Court remarked that this was a test case to give the concept of “Social Audit” a chance to gain ground. Responsible and resourceful persons of the society who are occupying important positions in the Department of Administration, Education, Health, or Legal and other related fields including professionals like Chartered Accountants/Doctors/Lawyers etc., to take some responsibility to visit the places where persons with disability, orphans, old age people, victims of crimes and other destitute people are institutionalised so that they can know about the plight of these residents and contribute to raising their standards of living and well-being. People who are living in such institutions would also feel that they are not left out by society, and society is still eager to take them into its fold.
The Court further remarked that another important effect of the Social Audit is that the management of these institutions sometimes misbehaves toward the residents, especially women and children; in this way, they would always be cautious that they were being observed. Therefore, the Court held that the evolution of the concept of Social Audit and its effective implementation was the need of the hour. Policy-makers, especially the Department of Women and Child Welfare Development (DWCD), the Department of Social Justice, and the Police Department, must come out with some tangible solution in this regard.
Accordingly, the Court further directed the applicant’s counsel to submit a report regarding his visit explaining his experience and the status of the old age home within 15 days. He shall also submit suggestions, if any, in the disposed of case, which will be restored by this order. The case shall be restored upon submission of the aforementioned report and affidavit.
Lastly, the Court directed a copy of this order to be sent to the Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Department of Social Justice, and the Secretary, Juvenile Justice Committee, M.P. High Court for information and contemplation.
[P.S. Mandeliya v. State of M.P., Misc. Civil Case No. 1820 of 2026, decided on 9-7-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anand Pathak
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Vijay Kumar Shukla
For the respondent: Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi
