CWP No.6631 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.6631 of 2010 Date of decision: 9.4.2010 Harpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 to 4 to consider representation, Annexure P-2 dated 29th July, 2009, filed by the petitioner and to take action against respondent No.5 on the basis of the same. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is a duly elected Panch of Gram Panchayat village Harsaru and respondent No.5 is Sarpanch of the same village. It is alleged that due to negligent acts of respondent No.5, loss has been caused to the Panchayat and thus, he needs to be removed from the post of Sarpanch. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner brought to the notice of the authorities that Sarpanch (respondent No.5) had caused loss of crores of rupees to the Gram Panchayat and thus, he needs to be proceeded against. Despite his representation dated 29th July, 2010 (Annexure P-2), no action has been CWP No.6631 of 2010 2 initiated against respondent No.5 by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. In the representation submitted by the petitioner, it has been stated that brother-in-law of the Sarpanch was committing number of improprieties in the functioning of the Panchayat resulting in huge loss to the Gram Panchayat. Same have been outlined in the representation. Most of the allegations relate to respondent No.6, said to be her brother- in-law (Devar). The allegations levelled by the petitioner are not supported by any document or proof. Thus, no case for issuance of writ of mandamus is made out. This apart, this court is conscious of the fact that Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is a complete code in itself to take care of all such matters. The petitioner has preferred this petition when tenure of the Gram Panchayat is going to be over. The petition, thus, appears to be motivated. The same is dismissed being devoid of merit. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 9.4.2010 'rajpal'