CWP No.18362 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18362 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.4.2010 Rishi Pal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The present petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing orders, Annexures P-6 & P-7, passed by respondents No.1 & 2 respectively. Vide order Annexure P-6, complaint preferred by the petitioner against respondent No.3 Ex-Sarpanch, was dismissed and direction was issued to proceed against him under Section 182 IPC by Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. Vide order Annexure P-7, the appeal preferred by him against the order passed by Deputy Commissioner was dismissed as not maintainable. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appeal preferred by him before respondent No.1 was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable. According to him, said CWP No.18362 of 2003 2 authority had placed reliance upon judgment of this court reported as Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 572 (P&H) while dismissing the appeal. He submits that thereafter a judgment has been delivered by the larger bench of this court reported as Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2006 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 170, according to which the appeal is maintainable at behest of the complainant. Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the contention regarding the judgment delivered in Darshan Singh's case (supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that in the larger bench judgment delivered by this court in Darshan Singh's case (supra), it has been held that reference in Section 51 (5) to person aggrieved, means the complainant. In the said case, judgment in Bhagwan Singh's case (supra) was also under consideration and was overruled. In view of the ratio laid down in Darshan Singh's case (supra), there can be no doubt that the complainant is entitled to maintain an appeal against an order passed by Deputy Commissioner, rejecting his plea. In view of this, petitioner is entitled to maintain an appeal against order dated 6th November, 2002 (Annexure P-6). Thus, the impugned order, Annexure P-7 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the same authority (respondent No.1) for decision CWP No.18362 of 2003 3 afresh after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to be present before the said authority on 25.5.2010. Allowed in above terms. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 30.4.2010 'rajpal'