CWP No. 14327 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 14327 of 2010 Date of decision: January 21,2011 Ravinder Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhatehja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondents ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general elections of Gram Panchayat, Lal Singh, father of the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Rammuwala Kalan with effect from 2002 to 2007 in view of provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act,1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). During his tenure, a grant of ` 1.25 lacs was released by the Government on 29.1.2004 under M.P.LAD Scheme for the construction of a wall of village pond. The amount of grant was stated to have duly utilized for the indicated purpose by father of the petitioner, and the relevant entries were duly made in the proceeding book of the panchayat in this regard. 2. The petitioner claimed that as luck would have been, his father Lal Singh remained unconscious and hospitalized for two years, and ultimately CWP No. 14327 of 2010 2 expired on 6.11.2005 as per Death Certificate (Annexure P-1) and the entire account books and record of Gram Panchayat remained in the custody of Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. 3. According to the petitioner that thereafter more than 4-1/2 years of death of his father (Ex. Sarpanch), the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Moga (for brevity 'BDPO') (respondent No.2) issued a notice dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-2) indicating therein that since the amount of grant has not been properly utilized by his father, therefore, he (petitioner) was called upon to deposit the said amount. Similar letter dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) was also issued to him. Petitioner filed the reply dated 11.4.2010(Annexure P-4) denying his liability on merits as well as under Section 216 of the Act. 4. The case of the petitioner further proceeds that instead of dropping the proceedings, respondent No.2 again directed him to deposit the amount vide impugned order dated 28.5.2010(Annexure P-5). The operative part of which is as under:- “Keeping in view the above facts, I Arun Kumar,B.D.P.O. Moga-I, in exercising the powers conferred under Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1991 finally assess an amount of ` 1,25,000/- to be recovered from Shri Ranwinder Singh son of Lal Singh, Ex. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Rammuwala Kalan, District Moga. I hereby order that the said amount be deposited within 30 days in the bank account of Gram Panchayat and the receipt thereof be submitted to this office.” 5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition for quashing the impugned notices (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and impugned order (Annexure P-5), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of CWP No. 14327 of 2010 3 India, inter alia pleading that his father Ex. Sarpanch Lal Singh expired on 6.11.2005. He remained admitted for more than 2 years prior to his death and the record remained in the custody of Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. He has duly utilized the amount of grant for the construction of wall of the pond and maintained the proper record. It was claimed that neither any such amount can be recovered from the petitioner nor the respondent No.2 have any jurisdiction to issue notices (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and to pass impugned order (Annexure P- 5), at this belated stage. Even such recovery proceedings from his father was legally barred under Section 216 of the Act. 6. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequences of events in all according to the petitioner that the impugned notices and order are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. On the basis of aforesaid reasons, the petitioner sought the quashment of the impugned notices/order in the manner indicated here-in-above. 7. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statement inter alia pleading that as Lal Singh, Ex. Sarpanch, father of the petitioner did not properly utilize the amount of grant, so after his death, petitioner being his legal representative, is liable to pay the amount. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts of entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 9. As is evident from the record that Lal Singh father of the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch with effect from 2002-2007. He ceased to be a Sarpanch on account of his death on 6.11.2005. Section 216 of the Act postulates that every member of a Panchayat shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any CWP No. 14327 of 2010 4 money or property belonging to the Panchayat, if such loss, waste or misapplication is a consequence of his neglect or misconduct while such member and shall also be liable to pay interest at the prescribed rate, from the date of loss, waste or misapplication, on the amount assessed under sub-section (2) or sub -section (3) as the case may be. 10. Sequally Sub Section (4) of this section further posits that notwithstanding anything contained in this section no person shall be called upon to explain why he should not be required to make good any loss, after the expiry of four years from the occurrence of the loss, waste or misapplication or after the expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a member, whichever is later. A co-joint reading of this provision would reveal that no inquiry can be initiated against the Sarpanch after two years of expiry of his term as a Sarpanch. 11. As indicated earlier, Lal Singh, father of the petitioner ceased to be a Sarpanch on account of his death on 6.11.2005, so what to talk of recovery from the petitioner, even the impugned amount could not be recovered from Lal Singh, Ex. Sarpanch, after the expiry of period of two years, when he ceased to be Sarpanch. Therefore, the impugned notices(Annexures P-2 and P-3) and impugned order (Annexure P-5) are not only illegal and without jurisdiction but against the statutory provisions of the Act as well. So the impugned order (Annexure P-5) cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted with costs. Consequently, the impugned notices (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and impugned order (Annexure P-5) are hereby set aside in this context. January 21,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No