Civil Writ Petition No.19520 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19520 of 2011 Date of Decision:18.10.2011 Manjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The instant case is another addition in the list of such cases of inter-se non-cooperation of Panches and Sarpanch, where it is hampering and adversely affecting the development of the Village Kandolan Kalan, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, against the already sanctioned grants by the Government in this context. 2. As is evident from the record that, petitioner-Manjit Singh, Sarpanch of the village, moved a complaint(Annexure P-1A), informing the District Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No.2(for brevity “the DDPO”), regarding the absence of majority of the Panches, from the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, convened for the purpose of development work in the village. 3. Sequelly, six Members Panchayat reported in writing to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No.3(for short “the BDPO”) that since, the development work in the village is hampering, so, some Administrator be appointed to carry out the development work. 4. Taking the stock of the situation, the BDPO recommended the DDPO, to appoint an Administrator, for the development work of the village. Civil Writ Petition No.19520 of 2011 2 5. In the wake of report of the BDPO, the DDPO sent letters/registered notices to the Members Panchayat to start the development work. The Members Panchayat appeared and reported that the petitioner-Sarpanch was not taking them into confidence or take any opinion in the development work of the village. On the contrary, petitioner-Manjit Singh, Sarpanch, projected that the Members Panchayat, are not attending the meeting for passing any resolution and are creating obstructions in the development work. 6. Finding no alternative, the DDPO appointed Baljinder Singh, VDO, Block Nurmahal as Administrator for the Gram Panchayat, only for a limited purpose of carrying out the work in question, for which the Government has already sanctioned the indicated grants till 30.11.2011 and thereafter, the order shall lapse automatically, by means of impugned order dated 03.10.2011(Annexure P-2), in view of the provisions of Section 200(1) of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 7. The petitioner-Sarpanch did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-2) relating to the appointment of the Administrator, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 9. What is not disputed here is that the Government has already sanctioned the grants for the indicated development work, but on account of non- cooperation between the Members Panchayat, the development work is hampering in the village. Therefore, there was no option with the DDPO except to appoint the Administrator, for a limited purpose of completion of development work, for which the Government has already sanctioned the grants. Civil Writ Petition No.19520 of 2011 3 10. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of the learned counsel that since, six Members Panchayat did not cooperate with the petitioner, he moved the complaint(Annexure P-1) and the respondents ought to have been taken action against them, so the impugned order(Annexure P-2) for appointment of the Administrator, is illegal, lacks merit. 11. Taking action against the Panches for their non-cooperation under the Act, is entirely a different issue than that of development of the village. The impugned order cannot possibly be set aside on account of non-cooperation of the Members Panchayat with the petitioner-Sarpanch, as urged on his behalf. This matter is no more res integra and is well settled. 12. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Jasbir Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, (2011-3) PLR 386, wherein it was ruled as under:- As is clear, Section 200 of the Act postulates that where a Panchayat makes a default in the performance of any duty other than a judicial function imposed upon it by or under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, the DDPO may by an order in writing fix the period for the performance of the duty and if it is not performed within the period so fixed, he may appoint any other person to perform the duty and direct that the expenses arising from, and incidental to, its performance shall be paid by the Gram Panchayat. Sequelly, Sub-Section(2) of this Section further posits that if, in the opinion of the Director, a Panchayat has failed or is otherwise incompetent to administer its property, movable or immovable, in the best interests of the Panchayat, the Director, after giving an opportunity to the concerned Panchayat of being heard, may appoint a person to administer such property for or on behalf of the concerned Panchayat. A conjoint reading of these provisions would reveal that if the Panchayat failed to perform any duty within the time specified, then the DDPO and the Director, as the case may be, have the power and jurisdiction to appoint an Administrator. Only the welfare & development of the village and larger public interest are the paramount considerations in this respect. Taking an action against the erring Panches under the Act, Civil Writ Petition No.19520 of 2011 4 who did not cooperate with the petitioner-Sarpanch, is one aspect, whereas to carry out the development of the village vide already sanctioned grants by the Government, is altogether another different aspect of the matter. The development of the village cannot possibly be permitted to be jeopardized or hampered by the petty(village) politics and mentality of the Panches in this relevant direction. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then no development of the village is possible, despite the amount of grants already provided by the Government. 13. In this manner, to me, the DDPO did not have any other alternative/option, but to appoint the Administrator to spend the indicated sanctioned grants on the development of the village. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances and the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis-mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 14. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 16. Needless to mention, that the District Development and Panchayat Officer would take appropriate action against the erring Members Panchayat under the Act, in pursuance of the complaint(Annexure P-1), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, positively. October 18, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE