Civil Writ Petition No.513 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.513 of 2010 Date of Decision:06.04.2011 Jaspal Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Satwant Singh Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat elections held on 26.05.2008, the petitioners along with Bhagat Singh, Ajit Singh and Kiran Bala, were elected as Panches and Baljinder Singh was elected as a Sarpanch of village Burma, District Ludhiana, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The petitioners claimed that after the removal of Ajit Singh and Kiran Bala from the posts of Panches, by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab(respondent No.2)(for brevity “the Director”), Sarpanch- Baljinder Singh could not convene the meeting of Gram Panchayat as the quorum was not complete. Consequently, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.4)(for short “the BDPO”) recommended the case to the District Civil Writ Petition No.513 of 2010 2 Development and Panchayat Officer(respondent No.3) (for short “the DDPO”), for the appointment of the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat. The DDPO in exercise of power under Section 200(1) of the Act appointed the Social Education and Panchayat Officer as Administrator of the Gram Panchayat, to utilise the indicated grants for the development of the village till 30.11.2009, vide order dated 09.09.2009(Annexure P-2). The period of the Administrator was further extended to 31.01.2010 by the DDPO by means of other order dated 01.12.2009(Annexure P-3). 3. Aggrieved by the orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3), Baljinder Singh, Sarpanch, filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab(respondent No.1)(for brevity “the Appellate Authority”) by way of impugned order dated 14.12.2009(Annexure P-4). 4. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the ground that the DDPO has rightly appointed the Administrator to utilise the amount of the grants for the development of the village, but the Appellate Authority has illegally set aside the orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3) of the appointment of the Administrator, without any legal basis, by virtue of impugned order(Annexure P-4), which is stated to be arbitrary and illegal. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners sought the quashment of the impugned order(Annexure P-4), in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. The impugned order(Annexure P-4) was stated to have been passed, in view of the order/directions of this Court dated 21.08.2009(Annexure R-1) passed Civil Writ Petition No.513 of 2010 3 in Civil Writ Petition No.12339 of 2009 titled as Jaspal Singh Panch and others Versus State of Punjab and others and instructions(Annexure R-2). It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that the DDPO has only appointed the Administrator, by virtue of order(Annexure P-2) for utilising the indicated grants for the development of the village only upto 30.11.2009. The term of Administrator was further extended by the DDPO upto 31.01.2010 by way of order (Annexure P-3). 8. Meaning thereby, the orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3) were passed for a limited purpose and effective only upto 31.01.2010. Thereafter, it was ordered to restore/maintain the original position. Once, the period of operation of the Administrator has already expired on 31.01.2010 and functioning of the Gram Panchayat stood restored, then setting aside the orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3) by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order(Annexure P-4), is meaningless and the present petition challenging such order becomes infructuous. Therefore, no ground for interference in the impugned order(Annexure P-4) is made out, in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed of, as having become infructuous. April 06, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE