Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmir Kaur vs Sec. To Govt. Of Haryana, Development ... on 27 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)115PLR242
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This is a petition to direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for stay of the order dated 28.8.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra. Petitioner has also prayed for stay of the implementation of the Annexure P-1 till the disposal of her application by the respondent No. 1.
2. It appears from the record that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bohava in the General Elections held in 1992. She has been holding this office since then. On 28.8.1996, the respondent No. 2 passed an order under Section 51(1)(b) of the Haryana Panchyati Raj Act, 1994 and placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that another order dated 28.8.1996 has been issued for holding regular enquiry against the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1 on 6.9.1996 but the same was not entertained on that day because of the, rush of work of revenue side and also because 6.9.1996 was not the day for Panchayat cases. This story was repeated on 9.9.1996 and 10.9.1996 and ultimately she was directed to present the same in the office and the case was ordered to be taken up on 16.9.1996. It is said that on 16.9.1996, the petitioner, other members of Panchayat and counsel for the petitioner reached the office of respondent No. 1 only to find that Shri R.L. Sudhir has been transferred and the new incumbent was yet to take over. It is further said that the staff of the department adjourned the hearing of the appeal for 4.11.1996 and the request made on behalf of the petitioner for fixing a short date was declined.
4. On 25.9.1996, we gave notice of this writ petition to the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and she was directed to find out as to how long, the Government will take to make arrangement for appointment of an officer who can hear the appeals under the Panchyati Raj Act, 1994.
5. Today Ms. Bahri made a statement that the Government has already posted the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Development and Panchayats Department and the application filed by the petitioner for grant of stay as well as the appeal will be taken up for hearing on the next date. Ms. Bahri further stated that first and third Mondays have been fixed by the Appellate Authority to hear the Panchayat cases and the Court may at the best direct the hearing of appeal on 7th October, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that this Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the impugned order because the remedy of appeal provided for in the Act of 1994 has proved futile. Learned counsel further argued that non-consideration of the appeal as well as the application for stay filed by the petitioner for a long period of more than one month and 15 days should be sufficient to give rise to a presumption that a remedy of appeal is not an effective alternative remedy.
6. We have thoughtfully considered the argument of the learned counsel but are unable to agree with him that the remedy of appeal provided under Section 51(5) of '1994 Act' is an ineffective remedy. The legislature of Haryana has, in its wisdom, provided a remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by an order of suspension or removal from the office of Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or Panch because such order has grave adverse consequences on the right of an elected representative to hold the office. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government to see that the remedy of appeal provided under Section 51(5) proves to be an efficacious remedy. This is possible only if the Appellate Authority promptly considers the request made by the aggrieved person to hear the appeal as also the application for an interim relief. By fixing specified dates for entertaining the appeal or for hearing the stay matters, the Appellate Authority cannot frustrate the right of the aggrieved party to seek stay of the impugned order. In order to obviate such litigation in the Courts, we direct that in future the Appellate Authority shall direct its office to entertain appeals filed under Section 51(5) or similar other provisions involving suspension or removal of the elected representatives and hear and decide the prayer for stay at the earliest without fixing specified dates. However, hearing of the main appeal may be fixed on a particular date as per the convenience of the Appellate Authority.
7. In so far as this case is concerned, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority and present a copy of this order. There-after, the Appellate Authority shall give notice to the opposite side and decide the application of the petitioner for grant of interim relief oh or before 7th October, 1996.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
9. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel dasti on payment of required charges.