HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2685 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2011 **** Kirpal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. AG Punjab for respondents No.1,2,4&5 Ms. Tina Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. KS Dadwal, Advocate for respondents No.6&7 **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) (1). This PIL has been filed seeking direction for suitable action against the respondents No.6 & 7 for certain alleged omissions and commissions in discharge of their public duties. Respondent No.6 is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Bamial and also the Chairman of the PUSVAK Committee of the Government Elementary School, Bamial, District Pathankot whereas respondent No.7 is the Head Teacher of the said School. CWP No.2685 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid two respondents, acting in collusion and connivance, had demolished the boundary wall of the Elementary School and had pushed back the said boundary of the school by about 8 ft. This was done without approval of the Government. According to the petitioner, in the vacant land that became available, a decision was taken to construct shops, which were to be leased out to a favoured few. The petitioner has also alleged that respondents No.6 & 7 have cut and sold certain trees without the permission of the Forest Department. It is on the aforesaid broad facts that directions have been sought for taking of necessary action in law against the respondents No.6 & 7. (3). The Gram Panchayat as well as the State of Punjab have filed their respective written statements in the case. A reading of the written statement filed on behalf of the State would indicate that a preliminary enquiry was held in the matter which was followed by a regular enquiry. The report of the said regular enquiry dated 20.12.2010 recording that the boundary wall of the school was demolished and shops were constructed was submitted to respondent No.2 i.e. the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab. In the aforesaid CWP No.2685 of 2010.doc - 3 – written statement, it has also been stated that before the report of the enquiry had been submitted, the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution dated 01.10.2010 granting approval for renting out the constructed shops. Ex post facto approval of the action taken by the Gram Panchayat in demolishing the boundary wall and constructing/leasing out of the shops had been granted by the competent authority of the State Government. In so far as the felling of trees is concerned, in the written statement filed, it has been stated that prior approval from the Forest Department had been obtained and the trees so felled are still available at the site and the same have not been sold out. (4). It is on the aforesaid facts pleaded by both the parties that the Court has to decide as to whether any action prejudicial to the public interest has been taken by any of the respondents so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the PIL jurisdiction. Though the demolition of the boundary wall and the decision to erect shop-houses thereon and to lease out the same did not have the requisite approval of the Government, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that such a decision was prompted by the need to make the school financially viable. In this regard, though there is some confusion as CWP No.2685 of 2010.doc - 4 – to whether the income generated from the shop-houses would go to the Panchayat or the School, it is our considered view that in either of the situations, the benefit will flow to the School which undoubtedly would be in public interest. If the Panchayat has taken a decision to use a small parcel of the land within the erstwhile boundary of the School to generate some funds, such action cannot be termed to be adverse to public interest. The fact that ex post facto approval of such action had been granted by the State Government, is an additional feature of the case that has to be taken into consideration. In so far as the felling of trees is concerned, it has already been noticed that it is the specific case of the State that approval for such felling was granted by the Forest Department and the trees have not been sold till date. (5). Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the present is not a fit case for issuing any direction in exercise of the PIL jurisdiction vested in this Court. We, therefore, unhesitatingly, dismiss this PIL, however, without any order as to costs. (6). Before parting with the record, we would like to make it clear that the allotment of shops, which have not been CWP No.2685 of 2010.doc - 5 – made till today, will be so made only on the basis of public auction so that maximum possible revenue can be generated out of the same. (RANJAN GOGOI) Chief Justice 21.04.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge