CWP No.9095 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9095 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2010 Gurdial Singh ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Department of Rural Development & Panchayat & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) In the present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned orders dated 22nd March, 2010, Annexures P-3 & P-4, passed by respondent No.1, vide which appeals of respondents No.4 & 5 were allowed and orders of Director Panchayat were set-aside. It has been further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition, operation of the impugned order be stayed. Factual background of the case is that respondents No.4 & 5 were elected as Panches of village Alisher Khurd, Block Bhikhi, District Mansa. An enquiry was instituted against them. They were found guilty of charges of non-cooperation with the Panchayat and were later placed under suspension vide order, Annexure P-2. They were also debarred from contesting election for a period of three years. CWP No.9095 of 2010 2 Respondents No.4 & 5 preferred separate appeals before respondent No.1 (Financial Commissioner) under Section 20 (6) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”). The appeals were allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide separate orders, Annexures P-3 & P-4 respectively on 22nd March, 2010. It was held by him that a Panch of the Gram Panchayat is an elected representative of the people and he has democratic right to give opinion regarding any resolution presented by the Sarpanch. He cannot be suspended merely on the ground that he had expressed his disagreement with any resolution sought to be passed. The impugned orders were, thus, set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in case a Panch refuses to cooperate with the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and becomes hindrance in the same, he is liable to be suspended in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Act. Thus, the orders passed by respondent No.1 deserves to be set-aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. I am not impressed with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The local bodies such as Gram Panchayats have been constituted with the objective of introducing democracy at grass root level. These bodies are supposed to function in accordance with established democratic norms. In case a member of the Gram Panchayat wishes to express his opinion in respect of any resolution, CWP No.9095 of 2010 3 needless to say, he is free to do so. He cannot be penalised for any such opinion expressed or observation made by him in a meeting of the Gram Panchayat. I am, thus, of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity with the impugned orders, Annexures P-3 & P-4, passed by the respondent No.1 (Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat). I, thus, find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 18.5.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No