IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.07.2009 Jarnail Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J. Petitioner retired as a Superintendent Grade-I from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. He has filed this writ petition with a prayer that directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold enquiry against respondent Nos.3 to 9, for not performing duties, imposed upon them under the law. It is necessary to mention here that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the former Deputy Commissioners of district Ferozepur, respondent No.6 is the present incumbent, respondent No.7 is the former District and Development Panchayat Officer, Ferozepur and respondent No.8 is the former Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. Respondent No.9 is the Punjab Human Rights Commission at Chandigarh. Petitioner started fighting with his neighbour in the year 2003 when he moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur that projection raised on house of his neighbour Amrik Singh be removed. It was his averment that the projection in question causes lot of inconvenience in the movements of tractor and trolley on the street in the village. His Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 complaint was looked into at various levels. BDPO Ferozepur reported that regarding removal of projection over the house, Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short the Act) is silent. His report was endorsed by SDM Ferozepur, however, DDPO and Deputy Commissioners were of the opinion that the projection raised would amount to encroachment as defined under the Act. When no action was taken, the petitioner went to the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2005 and then to the Commissioner. In his representation to the Commissioner, he leveled allegations against the then DDPO and other officers, by stating that they had forged noting sheets. It appears that respondent No.6, on receipt of petitioner’s complaint from the office of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 14.2.2006. Against report made by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, the petitioner sent a complaint to the Chief Minister in the month June 2006. His complaint was down marked to the office of Commissioner, who instituted an enquiry through SDM Zira, in the allegations leveled by the petitioner. Report of the enquiry was submitted on 5.10.2006. The petitioner again was not satisfied. Then he made a complaint against the officer concerned and his neighbour, to the Commissioner in the Month of June 2007. Enquiry was marked to the then Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.5, who made his report on 31.1.2007 and 11.6.2007. This report also was not to the satisfaction of the petitioner. The petitioner again made a complaint in the month of January 2008 with a grievance that office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur had not made recommendation to the government through Rural Department for making an amendment in the Act, for removal of projection. Again enquiry was marked to Sh.Jas Karan Singh, PCS 2 Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 Additional Commissioner Ferozepur. His report also failed to satisfy the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner moved a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (respondent No.9), which was disposed of vide order dated 7.3.2008. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- The matter complained of is barred by limitation by virtue of the provision of Section 36(2) of the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Hence no action on the part of the commission is required. However the commission decides to send copy of this complaint and the copy of the order to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur who may examined the allegation according to law at his own level to take such action and deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. A copy of the order be sent to the complaint for information. With the aforesaid observations, the complaint stands disposed of.” Thereafter, it appears that the Commissioner Ferozepur referred complaint of the petitioner, along with reports of enquiries earlier made, to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur for investigation. At that stage, the petitioner again moved an application before Human Rights Commission, Punjab, stating that the Commissioner Ferozepur was not justified in sending his complaint to the Deputy Commissioner. Complaint was disposed of and following order was conveyed to the Commissioner Ferozepur:- “I am directed to refer this Commission’s letter No.15168 dated 7.3.08 on the subject noted above and to 3 Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 forward herewith a copy of application dated 31.3.08 of he complainant for taking necessary action as per order dated 28.2.08. I am further to say that the commission against direct you to look into the matter at your own level.” Matter was taken up by the Commissioner on some dates, thereafter, he again transferred the complaint made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur vide order dated 27.3.2009. The petitioner again moved an application before respondent No.9, which was disposed of by the Commission, vide order dated 30.4.2009, by observing as under:- “Now the complainant has filed an application dated 6.4.09 alongwith enclosures. His grouse is that despite the directions issued by the commission vide order dated 17.4.2008, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur in the midst of the enquiry has directed the DC, Ferozepur to start the inquiry. He alleges that the Commissioner is disobeying the order of commission and prays that the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur be again directed to strictly obey the direction issued by the Commission. The objection raised by the complainant / applicant has no substance. The commissioner competent to mark inquiry to any officer he likes. The application is dismissed.” Hence, this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that action of the Commissioner Ferozepur, in transferring complaint filed by the petitioner, to the Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur was not justified and 4 Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 runs contrary to the order passed by respondent No.9. Counsel further contended that once the Commissioner was asked to look into the matter himself, it was not open to him to send complaint of the petitioner for investigation to the Deputy Commissioner. To support his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Parthasarathi v. State of A.P., AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2701. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that present writ petition deserves dismissal. Petitioner appears to be a chronic litigant and is hell-bent upon to see that projection of house of his neighbour be demolished. As is evident from the record, enquiries at his instance, were conducted several times. None of the enquiry report was in his favour and he continued to make representations to one or the other officer. Petitioner is taking benefit of his expertise in framing the complaints, which he may have acquired when he was working as Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has failed to show any bias at the level of Deputy Commissioner, which may necessitate that his complaint be looked into by the Commissioner himself. There is allegation that his neighbour is in a position to influence the Deputy Commissioner whosoever the officer may be. This allegation is without any basis. Order was passed by respondent No.9 asking the Commissioner Ferozepur to look himself, into the complaint filed by the petitioner. When his complaint was transferred to Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner again moved an application before respondent No.9. His application was disposed of by stating that the objection raised by the petitioner has no substance and the Commissioner is competent to mark enquiry to any officer, he likes. Application of the petitioner was dismissed. In a way, action of the Commissioner Ferozepur, 5 Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 in transferring complaint of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur was approved by respondent No.9. If that is so, objection raised by the petitioner is frivolous. Judgment in the case of S.Parthasarathi (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. That was a case where departmental enquiry was conducted against a government servant under the Rules, to take disciplinary action. Head of the Department was directed to conduct enquiry himself, however, enquiry was transferred to the officer against whom there were specific allegations. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that action of the Head of the Department was not justified. Besides as above, bias at the hands of the officer concerned, against the petitioner in that case, was apparent on record. So far as this case is concerned, once respondent No.9 has approved action of the Commissioner Ferozepur, no grievance is left with the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has a fancy for litigation and is in the habit of making complaints at various levels. Such a litigant is not entitled to get any relief under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 21.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 6