Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hakim Singh, Sarpanch vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995P&H106, (1994) 2 LJR 1, AIR 1995 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 106, (1994) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 316, (1994) 2 LANDLR 127, 1994 REVLR 1 553, (1994) 2 RRR 370, (1994) 2 PUN LR 141
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
ORDER A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Short question for consideration in this writ petition is about the validity of the'order (Annexure 1) dated February 21, 1994, passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Fero-zepur. This order is purported to have been passed under Section. 99(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, appointing Shri Kirpal Singh, Gram Sewak, Block Jalalabad, as Administrator to spend the grant. While giving reasons for passing such an order, it is mentioned that the Gram Panchayat Chak Gulam Rasual Wala (Chowk Veroke) is comprised of six members and a Sarpanch. Four members are not co-operating with the Sarpanch and they had reported the matter in writing that the Gram Panchayat had re-ceived a grant of Rs. 1,70,016/- under the special Development Gram Scheme and the same may be spent through the Administrator. The majority quoram of the said Gram Panchayat is not complete. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Jalalabad, recommended the appointment of the Administrator. This order has been challenged by Hakim Singh Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat aforesaid.
2. On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed by the official respondents.
3. Section 99(i) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act reads as under:--
"If a Gram Panchayat makes default in the performance of any duty other than a judicial function imposed upon it by or under this Act, or under any other law for the time being in force, the Deputy Commissioner or the (District Development and Panchayat Officers in Punjab) (Sub-Divisional Officer in Haryana) as the case may be, may fix a period for the performance thereof, and in case of default may appoint any person to perform it and may direct that the expenses arising from, : and incidental to, its performance shall be paid by the Gram Panchayat within the time fixed."
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that it is only in one contigency that the action could be taken, i.e. if the Deputy Commissioner or the District Development and Panchayat Officer had fixed a period for performance of some function other than judicial function by the panchayat that on failure to do so, Administrator could be appointed. There is no allegation in the written statement that any such period for performance of function was fixed by the competent authority, mentioned therein. It is a fact that a grant was made available to the panchayat for being spent. However, no period was fixed for utilization of such funds by the panchayat.
4. Section 14 of the Act provides quoram for meeting of the Gram Panchayat, as majority of the panches for the time being holding office. There are six members of the Panchayat and the seventh is Sarpanch. Out of even, four would constitute the quoram. For smooth functioning of the panchayat, a democratic rule is provided that the decision of the majority of the members of panchayat would be final. If some members are not attending the meeting called by the Sarpanch, some action against them under the Act, or Rules framed thereunder, may be taken. But that per se cannot be a ground that the Sarpanch is not acting in accordance with law that action could be taken under Section 99(1) of the Act for non-observance or compliance of the resolutions passed by the Panchayat. It is the responsibility of the Sarpanch, as already held by this Court in Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Punj LJ 481 and Bakhshish Singh v. Divisional Dy. Director, Panchayat, 1985 Pun LJ 99. There is no dispute with the proposition, as stated above. However, this is not a case where any action against the Sarpanch, as such, is being taken, suffice it to say, in exercise of the powers under Section 99(1) of the Act, in the facts of the present case, order Annexure P/1 could not be passed. The same is, therefore, quashed.
5. Writ petition disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
6. Order accordingly.