IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16924 of 2010 Date of decision: 25th November, 2010 Dharamjeet Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Palvinder Singh, Senior DAG Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No.6. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that the impugned notice (Annexure P-3) dated 1st September, 2010 issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana that the petitioners should appear before the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ludhiana, be quashed. Grievance made by the petitioners is that earlier the same complaint was investigated by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana, who is a statutory authority under Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) to enquire into the complaints and the petitioners were absolved in the above said enquiry. Notice (Annexure P-3) has been assailed on the following grounds: Civil Writ Petition No.16924 of 2010 (a) The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ludhiana has no authority to enquire into the conduct of the petitioners on the basis of any complaint submitted; (b) A similar complaint was earlier enquired into by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana, who is vested with such power under Section 216 of the Act and the petitioners were absolved of all the allegations. Hence, the proposed enquiry cannot be held by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ludhiana; (c) Even otherwise, the complaint is barred by way of limitation prescribed under Section 216 of the Act. Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.6, has stated that only a notice has been issued to the petitioners and no action has been proposed. Counsel for the State has submitted that in case the petitioners appear before the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and bring to his notice the above said contentions and the earlier enquiry report, there is no doubt that the Deputy Chief Executive Officer shall consider the above said submissions and may drop the proceedings. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that in view of the statement made by counsel for the State, he be permitted to file reply in response to the notice (Annexure P-3), without prejudice to right of the petitioners to approach this Court again. In view of the statements made by counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State, the present writ petition stands disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 25, 2010 rps 2