CWP No.10121 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.10121 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.5.2010 Gram Panchayat Hardo Neknama ...Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Vikas Bhawan, Mohali & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner Gram Panchayat has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 29th July, 2009 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.3, whereby an amount of Rs.4297/- along with interest was directed to be recovered from respondent No.4, an Ex-Sarpanch of the village instead of Rs.1,47,147/-, as directed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (D), Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.4 was guilty of certain embezzlements in the Panchayat funds and thus an amount of Rs.1,47,147/- was recoverable from him. He has relied upon a report dated 12th July, 2004, submitted by Additional Deputy Commissioner (D) Hoshiarpur, Annexure P-2, to contend that the said officer had found respondent No.4 liable for payment of Rs.1,47,147/- to the petitioner. He submits that despite the CWP No.10121 of 2010 2 report, Annexure P-2, another report had been submitted by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Dasuya (respondent No.3 herein) holding the petitioner only liable for Rs.4297/-. He has, thus, sought quashing of report, Annexure P-7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that there were certain allegations against respondent No.4, an Ex-Sarpanch of petitioner Gram Panchayat. Initially, a report was submitted by Additional Deputy Commissioner (D), Annexure P-2 holding her responsible for payment of Rs.1,47,147/- to the petitioner Gram Panchayat. Ultimately, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.4 before Secretary, Local Bodies, who allowed the same and remanded the case back for decision afresh to respondent No.3. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3 got assessment done from Sub Divisional Officer, Panchayati Raj, Dasuya and came to the conclusion that amount due from respondent No.4 was Rs.4297/-. This report was submitted on 9.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity, legal or otherwise with the report in question. Only contention raised by him is that report submitted by Additional Deputy Commissioner (D) in the year 2004 should have been relied upon by the authorities. This contention is, however, devoid of merit. It is evident that Secretary, Local Bodies had accepted the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 and remanded the case back for decision afresh. It is pursuant to this direction that Block Development and CWP No.10121 of 2010 3 Panchayat Officer, who got assessment done from various officials and came to the conclusion that only Rs.4297/- were due to be recovered from respondent No.4. The factual contention raised by the petitioner to impugn the said report submitted by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction of this court. Even otherwise, I do not find any defect, legal or otherwise in the entire proceedings. Since the petitioner has not been able to show how the report submitted by Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.3 herein) is liable to be quashed, no interference in writ jurisdiction of this court is called for. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 27.5.2010 'rajpal'