IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13221 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 21, 2011 Ravinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAI RAJIV NARAI RAJIV NARAI RAJIV NARAIN RAINA N RAINA N RAINA N RAINA Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges vires of Section 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) ultra vires of Constitution. The provision provides for suspension of a Sarpanch on a ground which may entail his dismissal A prayer has also been made for directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to restrain Shri Pradeep Singh-respondent No. 5 from illegally interfering in the working of the Gram Panchayat, Village Issru, Block Khanna, District Ludhiana, by filing false applications against the Sarpanch and Panches and to give advance notice before initiating any proceedings against them. CWP No. 13221 of 2010 2 2. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Issru, Block Khanna, District Ludhiana. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that Shri Pradeep Singh lost the election of village Sarpanch in the year 2008 and since then he is bent upon not to allow the Gram Panchayat to function properly. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 is in the habit of making false complaints so that the misdeeds done during the time when he was Sarpanch of the village may not come to the surface. Respondent No. 5 and one Narinder Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner and his family members alleging that they are in un-authorised possession of the shamlat land of Gram Panchayat, Issru. Their further allegation was that no action is being taken because the petitioner is himself a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Issru. 3. On 7.6.2010, the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana, sent his comments in the matter and recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner (P-8/T). Thereafter, on 29.6.2010, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, passed an order suspending the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch and restrained him from taking part in any proceeding of the Panchayat. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Khanna, has been directed to give the charge of the post of Sarpach to an authorised Panch in accordance with law (P-10/T). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and also perused the paper book. During the course of arguments, it has been conceded as a fact that the petitioner has been reinstated after exoneration in a regular departmental inquiry and at present no disciplinary inquiry is pending against him. The CWP No. 13221 of 2010 3 charge of the post of Sarpanch has already been handed over to him, which satisfy his grievance. Accordingly, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. The challenge to the vires of Section 20(4) of the Act has been rendered academic and the issue is left open to be adjudicated in some appropriate proceedings. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (RAJI RAJI RAJI RAJIV NARAIN RAINA V NARAIN RAINA V NARAIN RAINA V NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 21, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 JUDGE UDGE UDGE UDGE PKapoor