Civil Writ Petition No. 585 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 585 of 2010 Date of Decision: 2.7.2010 Sher Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. R.S. Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.6. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued and the respondents be directed to remove the encroachment and blockage of drain so that the sullage discharged by the residents is not blocked. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment dated 19.8.1999, rendered by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, in Civil Appeal No. 226 dated 25.11.1997 (Annexure P1), wherein it was concluded as under:- Civil Writ Petition No. 585 of 2010 2 “8. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.9.1997 is upheld with some modification only. The defendant No.1 has been correctly restrained by the trial Court from constructing drain at point AB as shown in the red colour from in the site plan and further detailed in the head note of the plaint. Further it is made clear that defendant No.1 would be at liberty to construct drain at point AB only by passing a proper resolution and by only getting sanction by the competent authority to do so under the Panchayati Raj Act and not otherwise. With these observation, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed with costs with some modification therein as recorded above. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Act record of the lower Court be remitted. Appeal file be consigned to record room”. It is alleged, in the writ petition, that Bahadur Singh, respondent No.6, had blocked the drain and has encroached upon the area meant for drainage. It is strange that both the petitioner and respondent No.6 seek enforcement of the order, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, on 19.8.1999 (Annexure P1). In the written statement filed, respondent no.6 has stated that he has filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to construct the drain, as directed by the Additional District Judge, Civil Writ Petition No. 585 of 2010 3 Ludhiana, vide order (Annexure P1). In the said suit, on 22.8.2009, the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala, had passed the following order restraining the Gram Panchayat Gosslan:- “Summons for the service of defendants received back duly served. It is already 3.45 PM but none has appeared on behalf of the defendants. As such they are proceeded against exparte. In the meantime, defendants are restrained from converting natural flow of water of the drain. Marked as B to CD towards point AE without any approved plan. Now to come up on 7.11.09 for exparte evidence”. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Samrala, which is lowest functionary of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, has filed a reply on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State is not able to explain as to how a reply on behalf of the Government could be filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. She has further failed to explain as to whether the rules of business empower the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to file reply on behalf of the State. This fact is noticed as the Government, in the written statement, has taken the following stand:- “2. That in reply to para No.2 of the writ petition, it is submitted that as requested by the respondent No.5 to provide the police help to remove the blockage of the drain done by the respondent No.6, which Civil Writ Petition No. 585 of 2010 4 was constructed by the Gram Panchayat, a request received from the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat has already been forwarded to the SHO, Police Station Samrala for providing necessary help at the time of removing the encroachment as the respondent No.6 and his associates are creating hue and cry and that is the reason, the respondent No.5 requested the answering respondent to provide necessary help from the police and the contents of the para of the petition is matter of record. 3. That the contents of para No.3 of the writ petition, as stated are admitted in view of the letter received from the Gram Panchayat for providing police help to remove the encroachment being made by respondent No.6 on the street. The Hon'ble Court may issue direction to the S.H.O. Police Station to provide necessary police help as being requested by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, so that the encroachment be removed amicably from the spot to clear the drainage”. Can two functionaries of the State put blame upon each other Civil Writ Petition No. 585 of 2010 5 and run away from the duty which is cast upon them? It is also strange to note that all the concerned intended that order (Annexure P1), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, should be enforced but for non-enforcement they put blame upon each other. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that since he also intends enforcement of order (Annexure P1), it should not be construed that filing of civil suit by him is to cause an obstacle, therefore, he will withdraw the suit filed by him. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that the order (Annexure R2) passed by the Civil Court (Junior Division), Samrala, cannot be sustained and the same is vacated. Having vacated the order (Annexure R2), the present writ petition is disposed of by issuing following directions:- A) The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana, shall ensure that the order (Annexure P1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, is enforced and in terms of the observations made therein and the drain is constructed. B) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, is further directed to provide police help for construction of drain, in terms of order (Annexure P1). C) It is further ordered that in case the drain has been constructed, the same shall be made functional. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 2, 2010 “DK”