IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16989 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 24.09.2008 Parveen Goyal .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner (complainant) has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Haryana (respondent No.1 herein), whereby the appeal filed by Ram Singh (respondent No.4 herein), Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Lohari, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat, has been allowed and the order of his removal dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat (respondent No.2 herein), has been set aside. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the CWP No. 16989 of 2008 -2- impugned order. In the present case, vide order dated 28.11.2007, passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 was removed from the office of Sarpanch on the allegation that while leasing out the fish pond of the Gram Panchayat, the proper publicity was not made, and the pond was leased out for lesser amount. Respondent No.1, while setting aside the order of removal, held that at the time of auction, the officials of the Panchayat Department as well as the Fisheries Department were present and in their presence, fish pond of the Gram Panchayat was auctioned. Therefore, it has been held that Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat alone was not responsible for the conduct of the auction proceedings. During the course of arguments, it has been disclosed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the lease amount of the aforesaid auction was Rs. 1,05,000/-, but the same was not confirmed and was cancelled on an application filed by one Balwan Singh, on the ground that he was ready to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as the lease money for the aforesaid fish pond. In our opinion, merely because subsequently one person had offered more amount than the auction amount, it cannot be presumed that respondent No.4 has auctioned the fish pond illegally with intention to cause loss to the Gram Panchayat. Even otherwise, when the auction was cancelled and subsequently, pond was leased out for the higher amount, it cannot be said that any loss has been caused to the Gram Panchayat. Since respondent No.1, while setting aside the order of removal CWP No. 16989 of 2008 -3- of respondent No.4, has come to the conclusion that respondent No.4 alone was not responsible for the auction proceedings, as the officials of the Panchayat Department and the Fisheries Department were present, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 24, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE