CWP No. 14348 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14348 of 2010 Date of Decision : 13.08.2010 Dilbag Singh & another .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, vide which the recommendation of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to suspend respondent No.5, was not accepted. The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners along with three others were elected as Panches of the Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur, in the General Election of the Panchayats held in May, 2008. The respondent No.5 was also elected as Panch of the Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The case of the petitioner was that on 12.6.2008 auction of the Gram Panchayat land for the year 2008-09 was held, in which son of respondent No.5 participated and being highest bidder was CWP No. 14348 of 2010 -2- ***** granted the lease of land. The petitioners made a complaint to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer for suspension of respondent No.5, for the reason, that she violated the Rule 6(1)(b) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which bars a member of the family of Panch or Sarpanch from participating in the auction. Under Rule 6(1)(b) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, any Sarpanch or Panch or member of his family such as father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, wife, son, grandson, great grandson, or any other relative dependent on him is not allowed, to bid in auction, and take shamilat deh land on lease. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that as the son of respondent No. 5, had participated in auction and was declared as highest bidder, the petitioner rightly sought suspension of respondent No.5, on the ground that respondent No.5 was guilty of misconduct, in discharge of her duty, in terms of Section 20(1)(e) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Section 20(1)(e) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, reads as under :- “20. Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpanch. -- (1) The Director, may, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, remove any Sarpanch or Panch :- (a) to (d) xx xx xx (e) who during his present term of office or CWP No. 14348 of 2010 -3- ***** that immediately preceding it, has, in the opinion of the Director, been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties: or” On the complaint made by the petitioner, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer agreed with the complainant / petitioner, and recommended the suspension of respondent No.5 for violating Rule 6(1)(b) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. When the matter came up before the Director Rural Development & Panchayats, he did not agree with the report of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, and rejected the demand made by the petitioner for the suspension of respondent No.5. The petitioner challenged the impugned order by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court vide CWP No. 11504 of 2009, which was allowed on 4.2.2010. This Court set aside the order passed by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats being non-speaking order. After the remand the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats again rejected the recommendation of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The reason for coming to this conclusion was, that the auction was not held by the Gram Panchayat, as it was not constituted on the date of auction. The auction was in fact held by the Administrator. The lease was granted in favour of the son of respondent No.5 being the highest bidder by the Administrator. The learned Director Department of Rural Development CWP No. 14348 of 2010 -4- ***** and Panchayats held, that immediately on coming to know about the participation of son of respondent No.5 in the auction, the lease was cancelled. No misconduct, therefore, could be attributed to respondent No.5, which could empower the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats to suspend respondent No.5. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the impugned order by contending, that the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats failed to notice statutory provisions of law, which bar a member of the family of Panch or Sarpanch to take the land on lease, belonging to the Panchayat. Once it was admitted that son of respondent No.5 had in fact participated in auction and had taken the land on lease, it was proved that respondent No.5 was guilty of violating Rule 6(1)(b) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats failed to notice, that the evidence was subsequently created by respondent No.5, to save her post of Panch by alleging, that her son was not living with her, but was living separately, whereas, in fact, he was living with her. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner further was, that on the date of auction respondent No.5, had already been declared elected as Panch, her son was not entitled to participate in the auction, therefore, the finding of the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats holding, that no CWP No. 14348 of 2010 -5- ***** case was made out for suspension of respondent No.5, can not be sustained. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that this Court on an earlier occasion had set aside the order passed by the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats on the ground, that the order was non-speaking order. Again same error has been committed by the Director as he has not met with the reasoning given by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, in recommending the suspension of respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats has no right or jurisdiction to hold, that it was a duty of the Administrator to have told the son of respondent No.5, that he was not to participate in the auction. It was the duty of the Panch to know this fact, as elected Panch or Sarpanch is supposed to know the rules and regulations, therefore, the ignorance of law could not be an excuse. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats wrongly came to the conclusion, that lease stood cancelled, as it was only prerogative of the Collector to cancel the lease and nobody else, under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions. The reading of Section 20(1)(e) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 CWP No. 14348 of 2010 -6- ***** would show, that it is the discretion given to the Director to suspend the Panch or Sarpanch on the misconduct. The facts stated above, clearly show that there was no direct attribution of misconduct to respondent No.5, in allowing her son to participate in auction. Nor Panchayat took any part in auction of land. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it was only Collector under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, who could have cancelled the lease, can not be accepted, as cancellation of auction only arises when a person whose auction sought to be cancelled by the Gram Panchayat raise this plea, when a person voluntarily surrenders, then there is no bar to accept the surrender and cancelling the auction, if it is held in violation of rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only Collector under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, could have cancelled the lease, can not be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the lease holder has voluntarily surrendered the lease, and it has been leased to some other person. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that ignorance of law is not an excuse, again can not be a ground to suspend a Panch, who has not participated in conduct of the auction. It has been proved on record, that at the time when auction was held, Panchayat though elected was not constituted, therefore, it was the Administrator, who auctioned the land. There is, thus, no illegality in the order passed by the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats in rejecting the recommendation made by the Block CWP No. 14348 of 2010 -7- ***** Development and Panchayat Officer. Section 20 of the Act casts an obligation on the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats to consider the case on merit and thereafter take decision, automatic suspension could not be ordered merely because some allegations are leveled against the Panch or Sarpanch without attributing any role to him / her. Even otherwise, the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the order is doubtful, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saktu Ram Vs. The State of Haryana & others 1988 PLJ 379. No merit. Dismissed. 13.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE