IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15407 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 03, 2009 Makhan Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. N.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Challenge in this civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to Order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Secretary –cum- Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab. Order Annexure P-11 is an order whereby two Gram Sabhas namely Nathuwala Garbi and Nathuwala Nawan were bifurcated. Elections were held for the two constituted gram panchayats. The gram panchayats are CWP No.15407 of 2008 [2] still working as on date and resolutions are being passed, and affairs of gram sabha managed. It seems that in the meantime, respondent No.5, Gurjant Singh, wanted both the gram sabhas to be amalgamated again. Said Gurjant Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No.10610 of 2008. This Court, vide Order dated 10.6.2008 directed the respondents to take a decision on the representation of Gurjant Singh. Considering the representation, the impugned order has been passed whereby it has been directed that fresh corrigendum be issued and the two gram sabhas be amalgamated. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Gurjant Singh (respondent No.5) and the popular vote in the two gram sabhas are of the opinion that present arrangement of having two gram panchayats is working effectively and the same be allowed to continue. Learned counsel for the respondent- State says that with the new developments, the respondent-State shall consider the changed circumstances and take a decision accordingly. The petition is disposed of to enable the petitioners and Gurjant Singh (respondent No.5) to approach respondent No.1 with the changed circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that resolutions have been passed by the gram panchayats. CWP No.15407 of 2008 [3] The petitioners would have the liberty to place before respondent No.1 all the relevant documents i.e. resolutions passed by the gram panchayat and gram sabhas. The representation be filed within 45 days from today, whereupon decision would be taken by respondent No.1. Till the date of decision, status-quo would be maintained and the two gram panchayats would be allowed to continue. (AJAI LAMBA) February 03, 2009 JUDGE avin