C.W.P.No.6743 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6743 of 2011 Date of Decision:15.12.2011 Gurmail Chand (Ex-Sarpanch) ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Naiya Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Sivia, DAG Punjab for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner, is to the impugned letter, bearing No.1207 dated 29.3.2011 (Annexure P2), by means of which, the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Mahilpur (respondent No.3) directed the petitioner to deposit ` 4,58,245/- within a period of one week in the panchayat fund. 2. As is evident from the record that in the wake of previous general elections held in the year 1983, the petitioner was elected as Panch and Chand Ram was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The earlier Sarpanch resigned and Ujagar Singh was elected as new Sarpanch in the year 1985. As soon as, Ujagar Singh Sarpanch was suspended on 15.12.1992, thereafter, the petitioner was elected as acting Sarpanch of the indicated Gram Panchayat. Ultimately, the period of previous Sarpanch ended in the year 1993, whereas the fresh elections of Gram Panchayat were held. 3. The petitioner claimed that he contested the elections in the year 1993, after obtaining the 'no dues certificate' (Annexure P1), but he remained C.W.P.No.6743 of 2011 -2- unsuccessful. According to him that Narinder Kumar remained as Sarpanch of the village from 1993 to 1998, Dev Raj from the year 1998 to 2003, Tarsem Lal was elected as Sarpanch in the year 1998 and presently Smt.Mindho Devi is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioner claimed that although many other persons remained on the post of Sarpanch during the relevant period, but respondent No.3 has issued the impugned letter (Annexure P2), directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of ` 4,58,245/-, relatable to the period from January, 1993 to September, 2010, on the basis of audit report in a very casual manner and without following the due procedure. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition, challenging the indicated impugned letter against the respondents, in the manner depicted hereinbefore. 5. The respondents refuted the claim of petitioner and filed the written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. However, the factual matrix of the appointment of Sarpanches, mentioned in the writ petition, has not been specifically denied. The official respondents claimed that since the petitioner has embezzled the amount, so, he is liable to pay the same to the Gram Panchayat. 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. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, as the impugned letter cannot legally be maintained, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 7. As is clear that the perusal of the impugned letter (Annexure P2) would reveal that during the audit of Gram Panchayat, it has come to the notice of the Government that an amount of ` 1,25,118/- was kept excessive cash in hand, C.W.P.No.6743 of 2011 -3- by the petitioner during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010, he was directed to make the payment and non-compliance of the same would lead to proceedings under section 216 for recovering the impugned amount. The registration of criminal case was also proposed. No material, muchless cogent, is forth coming on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted, after providing the opportunity to the petitioner, as contemplated under section 216 of the Act. Moreover, the impugned letter appears to have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to him, which renders it (Annexure P2) nullity. In this manner, the impugned letter cannot legally be sustained. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of any kind of subsequent proceedings, the instant writ petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned letter (Annexure P2) is hereby quashed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. Needless to mention here that the respondents would be at liberty to recover the amount from the petitioner, in pursuance of any order, if any, passed under section 216 of the Act or after following the due procedure in accordance with law. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 15.12.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No