CWP No. 20522 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20522 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.02.2011 Davinderjit Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. C.L. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paliwinder Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos 1 & 2 Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) As is evident from the record that Ashok Singh s/o Dharam Pal Singh (respondent No. 4) moved an application dated 27.08.2008 (Anneuxre P1) before Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Budhi Pind, District Hoshiarpur, complaining that petitioner is not paying the amount in question and prayed for its recovery. The Gram Panchayat in an unlawful manner, imposed a fine of Rs.50/- on the petitioner in his absence, vide resolution dated 24.09.2008 (Anneuxre P2). The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur (respondent No. 2) (for brevity “the DDPO”), by virtue of impugned order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P3). 2. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution (Annexure P2) & impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. CWP No. 20522 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and relevant provisions of the Act, with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons mentioned herein below. 4. What is not disputed here is that respondent No. 4 filed the application before the Gram Panchayat for recovery of the balance amount from the petitioner. The recovery of the individual amount of any person is a private dispute between the parties, which can only be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, that to after following the due procedure of the trial. The Gram Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction to settle the private dispute between the parties and to impose a fine on the petitioner, by means of resolution (Annexure P2), that to without any enquiry or trial, for his non-appearance before it. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents did not point out any provisions of law, by virtue of which such fine can be imposed by the Gram Panchayat on the petitioner. Thus, the Gram Panchayat fell in error in this regard. The same very mistake was repeated by the DDPO and illegally dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, by way of impugned order (Annexure P3). In this manner, in the absence of any legal provision/power/jurisdiction with the Gram Panchayat to impose a fine for non-appearance of the petitioner before it, the impugned resolution (Annexure P2 ) and impugned order (Annexure P3) cannot legally be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned resolution (Annexure P2) and the impugned order (Annexure P3) are hereby set aside, in this context. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 24, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No