Himachal Pradesh High Court
__________________________________________________________ vs The SubDivisional Officer (Civil) & ... on 14 November, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.355 of 2018 .
Date of Decision:14.11.2018 __________________________________________________________ Satya Devi .....Petitioner Versus The SubDivisional Officer (Civil) & others .....Respondents Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the Respondents : M/s S.C.Sharma, Dinesh Thakur & Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
__________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure P4), passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2018 22:56:58 :::HCHP 2
Himachal Pradesh, whereby an appeal having been filed by the petitioner, laying therein challenge to order, dated 20.12.2016 .
( Annexure P1), passed by Gram Panchayat, Gasota, Tehsil Tauni Devi, District Hamirpur, H.P., came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to quash and setaside the impugned orders dated 15.05.2018 and 20.12.2018, passed by the authorities, mentioned hereinabove.
2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner despite repeatedly orders having been passed by Gram Panchayat, Gasota, Tehsil Tauni Devi, District Hamirpur, H.P, failed to construct soak pit like other villagers and as such, Members of Gram Panchayat visited the spot on 26.9.2016, however fact remains that petitioner failed to join the proceedings on the spot. On 29.9.2016, daughter of petitioner gave in writing to the Gram Panchayat that when entire village would construct soak pit, they would also construct the same.
3. Having taken note of aforesaid reply submitted by the petitioner, Gram Panchayat initiated action against the ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2018 22:56:58 :::HCHP 3 petitioner under Section 12(ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act') .
and subsequently imposed fine to the tune of Rs.500/ under Section 15 of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the passing of order dated 20.12.2016, petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) exercising the power of Collector, Hamirpur, H.P., under Section 67 of the Act, who vide order dated 15.5.2018, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Gram Panchayat, Gasota. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner, Satya Devi was duly intimated by the Gram Panchayat concerned through summons on 29.7.2016 and 17.8.2016 with regard to registration of case against her. Since, she failed to put in appearance pursuant to aforesaid notices, Gram Panchayat ordered for pasting of summon on 30.8.2016, but despite that petitioner failed to attend the court and as such, ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2018 22:56:58 :::HCHP 4 Gram Panchayat, Gasota passed the order dated 20.12.2016 and imposed fine of Rs.500/ in terms of Section 15 of the Act. Since, .
Gram Panchayat had issued summons before passing impugned order, there is no force in the arguments of Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the petitioner that orders was passed at the back of the petitioner. Rather, careful perusal of the record, suggest that Gram Panchayat before passing the order, afforded due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also visited the spot. It also emerge from the record that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to construct the soak pit, but since she failed to comply with the directions issued by the Gram Panchayat, it was compelled to initiate action in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act. After having carefully perused the provisions contained in Section 12(2) and 15 of the Act, this Court is not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that Gram Panchayat has exceeded its jurisdiction while imposing fine.
6. Leaving everything aside, during the proceedings of the case, this Court was informed that petitioner has now constructed the soak pit, as directed by the Gram Panchayat, ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2018 22:56:58 :::HCHP 5 Gasota and as such, this Court without going into the correctness of the impugned orders passed by the authorities below, deems it .
fit to waive of penalty imposed by the court below and dispose of the present petition issuing warning to the petitioner to be more careful in future while dealing with legal matters. Ordered accordingly.
7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that soak pit stands constructed, but in case something is remained to be done on the spot, petitioner undertakes to do the needful immediately within a period of one month, failing which, petitioner shall render herself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge 14th November, 2018 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2018 22:56:58 :::HCHP