Civil Writ Petition No. 1503 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1503 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.05.2010 Gram Panchayat, Village Chowarianwali ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Niti Wadhawan, Advocate for Mr. Gourave Bhayyia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 5 & 7. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner-Gram Panchayat has preferred the instant petition praying for writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing illegal allotment of contract for the constructions of streets and drains in village Chowarianwali. A writ of mandamus has also been sought to release the grant meant for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grant which is sanctioned for the Panchayat cannot be used by any other agency and thus, same needs to be released to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. Learned State counsel has referred to reply filed on behalf of official respondents. He submits that five members of the Panchayat and other residents of village Chowarianwali had made a complaint regarding misuse of funds of Panchayat by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Civil Writ Petition No. 1503 of 2010 2 Chowarianwali. Keeping in view the same and to avoid any controversy, the funds meant for Gram Panchayat were directed to be spent by Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj. According to learned counsel, pursuant to same the Executive Engineer has already executed the project in the village. He further submits that apart from this, the Sarpanch was in minority and was, thus, unable to get the requisite resolution passed. He has emphasized that funds were spent for development of the village. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the clear stand of the State that funds were utilized for development of the village and projects have already been executed, no interference in the writ jurisdiction is called for. It appears that in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, State had no option but to entrust execution of projects to an official of the department. No legal infirmity with this action has been pointed out. The petition is thus devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. May 19, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE