CWP No.13909 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13909 of 2009 Date of decision : 24-08-2010 Karamjit Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and order (Annexure P-4) dated 28th July, 2009 passed by respondent No.2-Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab be quashed, whereby respondent No.5 has been reinstated to the post of Panch. A grievance has been made in the writ petition that respondent No.5, who was elected as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat of village Islampur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, entered into an agreement with one Nirmal Singh to sell the Shamlat land measuring 95 Bighas situated in village Islampur and had CWP No.13909 of 2009 -2- obtained Rs.10.00 lacs as earnest money. Petitioner made a complaint against this transaction, upon which, as pleaded, an enquiry was held by respondent No.4, who recommended suspension of respondent No.5. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 29th December, 2008 had suspended respondent No.5. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.5 had filed an appeal and the order of suspension was upheld. Thereafter, a regular enquiry was ordered to be held, in which the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala absolved respondent No.5. Hence, respondent No.2 vide order (Annexure P-4) had revoked the order of suspension and had reinstated respondent No.5 to the post of Panch. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5-Darshan Singh executed an agreement to sell dated 18th January, 2005, whereas the official respondents have stated that the proprietors of the village had filed a petition under section 42 of the Consolidation Act before the Director, Consolidation and the same was accepted on 30th April, 1997. It is stated that the agreement to sell was entered into after the order was passed by the Director Consolidation. Counsel for respondent No.5 states that respondent No.5, after being elected as a Panch, in no way has acted to the detriment of the Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the parties. This Court is of the opinion that any act, prior to the CWP No.13909 of 2009 -3- election, committed in pursuance of the order passed by any lawful authority, cannot entail respondent No.5 with any disqualification. Furthermore, for these reasons, respondent No.5 was absolved of in the enquiry held by DDPO, Patiala. On the basis of the regular enquiry report, wherein petitioner was absolved, respondent No.2 has withdrawn the order of suspension and has reinstated the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer made in this petition that order (Annexure P-4) whereby respondent No.5 was reinstated be quashed and he be removed from the office of Panch cannot be entertained as respondent No.2 has validly exercised discretion on the basis of the enquiry report (Annexure R-4/1) conducted by DDPO, Patiala. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition. Dismissed. No costs. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 24-08-2010 JUDGE manju/rps