CWP No. 2688 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 2688 of 2010 Date of decision: February 16,2010 Vir Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. B.S.Kathuria, Advocate for the Petitioner. ... Rajan Gupta,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order Annexures P-1 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda (respondent No.1) whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed as Administrator to oversee the development works of Gram Panchayat Bhucho Kalan, District Bathinda and order Annexure P-2 vide which the Administrator was changed and respondent No.4 was appointed as Administrator instead of respondent No.3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhucho Kalan in 2008. The funds sanctioned for carrying out development activities in the village are to be spent by the Gram Panchayt from time to time. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nathana vide letter CWP No. 2688 of 2010 2 No. 156 dated 15.1.2010 wrote to respondent No.2 that an amount of Rs. 12 lacs was lying with the Pancyayat but was not being spent for auction of land of NAREGA as well as for distribution of pensions etc. due to non completion of quorum of the panchayat. Notice bearing No. 413/CFA dated 21.1.2010 was served on the petitioner as well as other panches to give information regarding the starting development works of panchayat. The information was to be supplied by 28.1.2010. Since no response was received by the said date, respondent No.2 appointed the SEPO as Administrator of the panchayat to utilize funds amounting to Rs. 12 lacs lying under Rural Development Fund ( RDF ), to auction land of NAREGA scheme and to distribute pensions. Vide order Annexure P-2, the Administrator was changed and Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nathana was appointed as Administrator in place of SEPO. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appointment of an Administrator is in violation of Section 200 of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”). According to counsel, there is no allegation that the petitioner failed to perform his duty and thus, the said Section could not be invoked. Besides no period was fixed for performance of duty as provided in Section 200 of “1994 Act”. He has relied on judgment reported as Hakim Singh Sarpanch Versus State of Punjab 1994(2) P.L.R. 141 in support of his case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that fund of Rs. 12 lacs was lying in the Rural Development Fund (RDF) which was not being spent by the Panchayat for CWP No. 2688 of 2010 3 development purpose. Even certain other projects like implementation of the NAREGA scheme and distribution of pension were pending. Under these circumstances, the authority invoked the power vested in it under Section 200 of “1994 Act” and appointed an Administrator for a period of one month. This was done only with a view to carry out the development works, to distribute pensions and to utilize funds meant for panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. The argument that the same is in violation of Section 200 of “1994 Act” is devoid of force. A perusal of order Annexure P-1 shows that panchayat had failed to perform certain duties including development works. Under the circumstances, it was felt necessary to appoint an Administrator to oversee the functioning of the panchayat. This order is to enure till 28.2.2009. Thus no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The judgment in Hakim Singh Sarpanchs case (supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner, in my view, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the said case no period for performance of function had been fixed, thus the order was quashed. In the instant case, however, on 21.1.2010, a notice was served on the Sarpanch and other Panches to give information regarding development works to be taken up in the village. One week time was given to the panchayat to furnish the requisite information. However, no information was received till 28.1.2010 by respondent No.2 with regard to development works to be carried out. Resultantly it was decided to appoint an Administrator till 28.2.2010 to carry out various pending works. CWP No. 2688 of 2010 4 Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no ground made out for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. February 16,2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) nk JUDGE