IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 7418 of 2011-I. Decided on: 27.12.2011. _________________________________________________ 1. Karam Dutt son of Shri Kirpa Ram village Mashdhan, Post Office Morsinghi, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Jagdev Singh son of Shri Paras Ram, resident of village Bachhari, Post Office Mor Singhi, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. … Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. The Director, Department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, District Bilaspur at Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 4. Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur, Sadar Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 5. District Panchayat Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 6. Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 7. Block Development Officer, Ghumarwin, Post Office Ghumarwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 8. Meena Vishisht wife of Shri Om Prakash, Pradhan/ President, Gram Panchayat Mor Singhi, Post Office Mor Singhi, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. - 2 - 9. Amar Singh Dhiman son of late Shri Kirpa Ram Up- Pradhan/Vice President, Gram Panchayat Mor Singhi, Post Office Mor Singhi, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. … Respondents. _________________________________________________ Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondents No.8 and 9. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): A complaint was filed against respondents No.8 and 9 by one Shri Sita Ram vide Annexure P-1. Thereafter the petitioner also filed a complaint against respondent No. 8 and 9 before respondent No.3 on 10.1.2010 vide Annexure P-2. The same was forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.5 on 8.2.2010. Respondent No.5 informed the respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-6, dated 7.5.2010 that since F.I.R. already stands registered against respondents No.8 and 9, bearing No.183 of 2009, dated 14.10.2009, the matter 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 3 - cannot be looked into. The stand of respondent No.5 was not in accordance with law. Merely registration of a F.I.R. will not absolve the authorities to look into the matter against respondents No.8 and 9 under the provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. Serious allegations have been levelled against respondents No.8 and 9 vide Annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4. 2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to hold a detailed inquiry against respondents No.8 and 9 on the basis of complaints Annexures P-1 and P-2, within a period of three months from today under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder wholly uninfluenced by the F.I.R. registered against respondents No.8 and 9 since the scope of inquiry under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is entirely distinct from the criminal investigation. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 27, 2011. (sck).