LPA No. 212 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 212 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 04.02.2011 Sukhwinder Singh son of Baldev Singh, r/o Panjeta-II, Block Ludhiana-II, District Ludhiana. ......Appellant Vs State of Punjab and others. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 571 of 2011 On due consideration of the grounds stated and having regard to the period of delay, delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 212 of 2011 The appellant/writ petitioner had submitted a complaint to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana to the effect that some trees were illegally/unauthorizedly felled by the respondent No. 5 who is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Panjeta and further that the same were sold for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- which amount was not LPA No. 212 of 2011 2 deposited in the Panchayat funds. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana sent the complaint to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana on 24.03.2009. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana in turn referred the matter to the Director, Village Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, Chandigarh for taking suitable action. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ludhiana was directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ludhiana submitted his report of inquiry on 05.03.2010 by concluding that the respondent No. 5 had assumed the office of Sarpanch on 11.07.2008 whereas the incident of felling took place in the night intervening 14/15.06.2008 and also in the night of 20.06.2008. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ludhiana in his report had arrived at the said conclusion on the basis of the statements of persons examined in the inquiry, details of which have been elaborately set out in the report which has been enclosed as Annexure P3 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said report dated 05.03.2010, by order dated 21.04.2010, the Director, Village Development and Panchayat Department filed the complaint against the respondent No. 5. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Punjab by order dated 16.08.2010. Thereafter, CWP No. 20944 of 2010 was instituted which having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.11.2010 the present appeal has been filed. LPA No. 212 of 2011 3 Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has contended that in the communication dated 01.09.2009 of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana addressed to the Director, Village Development and Panchayat (Annexure P2) a finding has been recorded that the respondent No. 5 is responsible for the illegal felling and sale of the timber. On the said basis it is contended that the contrary findings recorded in the report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana dated 05.03.2010 should not be accepted and a re-inquiry into the matter should be ordered. Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has also relied on the affidavits enclosed as Annexures A1 and A2 to the present appeal to substantiate his contention that the clear involvement of the respondent No. 5 in the illegal felling and sale of timber stands established. We have read and considered the documents enclosed as Annexure P2 to the writ petition as well as the documents enclosed as Annexures A1 and A2 to the present appeal. By Annexure P2 the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana has referred the complaint submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner to the Director, Village Development and Panchayat for necessary action and the contents of the said letter are a reiteration/narration of the allegations contained in the complaint. The documents enclosed as Annexures A1 and A2, on being duly read and considered, cannot be said to be indicative of the involvement of the respondent No. 5 in the allegations levelled. We are, therefore, of the view that the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was rightly dismissed by the learned Single LPA No. 212 of 2011 4 Judge. Consequently, there will be no scope of interference with the said order in the present appeal. Dismissed. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 04.02.2011 Amodh