CWP No.14090 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14090 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.5.2010 Hoshiar Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajnesh Chadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to remove respondent No.4 from the office of Sarpanch as she is guilty of misusing her office due to certain irregularities committed by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there were certain allegations of irregularities against the respondent No.4 while acting as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Sulkha, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. Pursuant to same, show cause notice was issued to her. Petitioner thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.15620 of 2008 CWP No.14090 of 2009 2 before this court seeking a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the show cause notice issued to respondent No.4. Learned counsel submits that this court vide order dated 3rd September, 2008 directed Deputy Commissioner, Rewari to look into the matter and take a decision on the show cause notice dated 24th December, 2007. The stand of the State before this court is that pursuant to the direction by this court, inquiry was entrusted to the concerned officer. In the inquiry, allegation pertaining to registration of votes in more than one constituency was proved. A show cause notice was, thus, issued to her under Section 51 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (vide letter No.831 dated 19th March, 2009). Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against her in terms of Section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 in the civil court. However, allegation of encroachment on Panchayat land could not be proved and thus, further action was not initiated in that respect. It is evident that pursuant to direction issued by this court in CWP No.15620 of 2008, the official respondents took necessary steps to hold an inquiry and take action against respondent No.4 in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince this court that appropriate proceedings were not taken pursuant to directions issued by this court. On the basis of allegation of registration of vote in more than one constituency, action under Section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 was initiated against her. However, allegation of encroachment on Panchayat land was not proved CWP No.14090 of 2009 3 and thus no action was taken in that regard. No cause of action thus survives in this petition. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 10.5.2010 'rajpal'