IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 54 of 2001 Decided on 24.4.2010 Dhani Ram and others ….Petitioners Versus Gram Panchayat and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Petitioners: Ms. Madhu Sharma, vice counsel For respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate For respondent No. 3: Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General Justice R.B. Misra, .J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Order, dated 29.11.2000, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C) Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur has been challenged, whereby appeal preferred under Section 12 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act has been affirmed. It appears, the petitioners are alleged to have created filthy soil, urine etc. in the locality and has created filth in the area, paths, Bawri (water tank), for which activities the petitioners were dealt with under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act and a fine of Rs. 25/- was imposed on Dhani Ram, Kamaljit and Sanjeev @ Rajiv by an order, dated 5.7.1999, passed by Gram Panchayat, Luharwin. By the said order, it was also indicted that said persons shall also be imposed penalty of rupee 1/- per day upto the maximum of Rs. 500/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (C). The said appeal was dismissed on 29.11.2000. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, the maximum penalty of Rs. 25/- could be imposed and imposition of rupee 1/- per day could only be made in case of continuance of breach of order, disobedience of the original order. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without ascertaining the continuance of nuisance or without ascertaining whether there was any disobedience of special original order, ever imposed on the petitioner, induction of imposition of rupee 1/- fine per day to a maximum of Rs. 500/- was not legal. Reliance has been made on the decision of this court reported in Sunka Ram Vs. Gram Panchayat Patt and others ILR (Himachal Series) (1984) 250, Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of this court in para 5 of the judgment (supra) which reads as follows:- “5. In Naurang Lal Vs. Gram Panchayat of village Gujarwas, LXVI (1964) PLR 28, the question before the Division Bench of Punjab High Court was whether under Section 23 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1953, which is in parimateria with Section 22 of the Act, a Gram Panchayat had the power to impose a prospective recurring penalty at the stage of first conviction for the breach. The Division Bench, for the reasons set out hereinbelow, held that a Gram Panchayat was not invested with such a power under the relevant statutory provisions: “The point is not that a Court or Panchayat cannot impose a recurring fine for a continuous breach of an order of this kind, but that it cannot do so on the first conviction of the offender for the breach, since by doing so it would be tantamount to imposing fine for an offence not yet committed, which cannot be done. In other words, after a conviction for disobedience of an order of this kind, whether passed by a panchayat or a municipal authority, the recurring fine can only be imposed after the continuance of the breach has taken place, and as long as the breach continues the Panchayat or Court must call the offender and impose the recurring fine on him from time to time as it becomes due.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. For convenience, Section 15 of the Panchayati Raj Act is given as bellows:- “15. Any person who disobeys an order of the Gram Panchayat made under Sections 12 and 13 shall be liable to a penalty which shall be imposed by the Gram Panchayat and may extend to twenty-five rupees; and if the breach is a continuing breach, with further penalty which may extend to one rupee for every day after the first during which the breach continues: Provided that the recurring penalty shall not exceed the sum of five hundred rupees. The penalty, if not paid, shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.” 6. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this court, by way of record that an endeavour was made at any stage to ascertain as any defiance or disobedience or breach was being made of any specific order or command imposed by Panchayat. The petitioners were never put to any show cause for any subsequent breach, if any, in order to impose recurring fine of rupee 1/- per day upto the maximum of Rs. 500/-, as ordered by the Gram Panchayat on 5.7.1999 which itself reveals that composite order at one stretch has been passed without making endeavour to decipher and segregate the ground for imposing a recurring penalty, as provided in Section 15 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act. 7. In view of the above discussion, in my respectful consideration the order, dated 29.11.200 is not legally sustainable and it is modified to the extent that the petitioners shall have to make payment of fine of Rs. 25/- only within one month from today with an undertaking to the Gram Panchayat that they shall maintain the dignity and respect of the Gram Panchayat in future in respect of the present specific allegations made hereinabove in and in reference to orders, dated 5.7.1999 and 29.11.2000. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of. April 24, 2010(K) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge