Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kameshwar Sharma & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 23 March, 2015

Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                             CWP No. 1282 of 2012
                             Date of decision: 23.03.2015




                                                           .

     Kameshwar Sharma & others           .....Petitioners
                     Versus





     State of Himachal Pradesh & others .....Respondents
     ________________________________________________
     Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge




     Whether approved for reporting?                  Yes.
     _________________________________________
     For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate.

     For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate

                          General with Mr. Romesh Verma,
                          Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional
                          Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K.


                          Verma, Deputy Advocate General,
                          for respondents No. 1 to 4.

                             Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate,




                             for respondent No. 5.





                             Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for
                             respondent No. 6.





     Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice           (Oral)

By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

"(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and Annexure P-12 dated 29.2.12 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:24 :::HCHP -2-

(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to hold an emergent .

and special meeting of Gram Sabha to discuss the agenda of shifting of the headquarter of Gram Panchayat Dadoghi.

(iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to depute a responsible officer for holding special and emergent meeting of Gram Sabha on the agenda of shifting of r headquarter of Gram Panchayat, Dadoghi and whatever resolution is passed, the same may very kindly be ordered to be implemented in a time bound manner.

(iv) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents 1 to 4 to hold a proper inquiry against respondent No. 6 for unauthorizedly spending the money for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan in violation of provisions of Panchayati Raj Act which is public money."

2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners have made various representations to various authorities for shifting of the Panchayat.

Respondent 2 intervened and wrote a letter to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:24 :::HCHP -3- Pradhan, Gram Panchayat for holding a Gram Sabha and discuss the said issue, but the said Pradhan failed .

to do so.

3. It is also contended that respondent No. 5

had already filed Writ Petition No. 2097/2008, titled Vidya Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others before this Court, came to be allowed vide order dated 12th August, 2010, which gave birth to LPA No. 258 of 2010, titled Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Dadhogi versus Smt. Vidya Sharma & others, was disposed of vide order dated 4th July, 2011, whereby the State was directed to take a decision on the Resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat.

3. It is further contended that after noticing all the facts, developments and circumstances, respondent No. 6 in collusion with respondent No. 5, obtained order in Contempt Petition No. 495 of 2011 and has not taken steps to shift the said Panchayat. The Pradhan also issued a notice for holding Gram Sabha on 04.03.2012, but respondent No. 3 wrote letter dated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:24 :::HCHP -4- 29.02.2012 to the Pradhan, directing him not to hold the meeting of the Gram Sabha. Hence, the present .

petition.

4. The respondents have filed reply and resisted the petition on the ground that it is for the Government to decide the suitability of the Panchayat headquarter. The decision regarding the place of Panchayat headquarter at Dadhogi was made with the consent and consensus of the Panchayat representatives and by now, some persons are seeking shifting of the place which is politically motivated. The authority has already decided where the headquarter of the Gram Panchayat is to be located.

5. It is beaten law of the land that it is the domain of the executive to decide at which place the Gram Panchayat should be located and which place is the best suited.

6. In case titled as CWP No. 621 of 2014, titled Nand Lal & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 21.05.2014, this Court has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:24 :::HCHP -5- examined the issue and held that the High Court cannot change the place of location.

.

7. Keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court read with the Apex Court, which is discussed in the Nand Lal's case, supra, this writ petition is not maintainable. Dismissed as such alongwith pending applications, if any.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.

     March 23, 2015                       (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
      (hemlata/krs)                                    Judge.







                                       ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:51:24 :::HCHP