Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2010 Date of Decision:16.05.2011 Jaswinder Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.A.P.S.Tung, Advocate, for Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of general Gram Panchayat elections, Shingara Ram-respondent No.5 was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Nussi, District Jalandhar, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The petitioner-complainant-Jaswinder Ram(for short “the petitioner-complainant”) claimed that as respondent No.5 was stated to have illegally cut and sold 20 Eucalyptus(Safaida) trees, belonging to the Gram Panchayat at a throw away price, did not deposit the sale proceeds in the account, therefore, he caused a great loss to the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the petitioner-complainant moved a complaint (Annexure P-1) against the Sarpanch. He admitted the factum of cutting of trees in his statement(Annexure P-2). The matter was inquired into and the Block Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2010 2 Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No.4(for brevity “the BDPO”) sent his report dated 26.02.2009 to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department-respondent No.2(for brevity “the Director”) . 2. Taking into consideration the report of the BDPO and other material brought on record, the Director removed the Sarpanch-Shingara Ram and other Panches, responsible for causing the loss to the Gram Panchayat, in exercise of power under Section 20 of the Act, vide order dated 22.07.2010(Annexure P-3). 3. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-3), respondent No.5 filed the appeal, without impleading the petitioner-complainant as a party. The Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No.1(for short “the Appellate Authority”) accepted the appeal, even without issuing any notice or providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-complainant and reinstated him(respondent No.5) on the post of Sarpanch, by virtue of impugned order dated 13.09.2010(Annexure P-4). 4. The petitioner-complainant did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 6. As is evident from the record that in the wake of complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner-complainant and having inquired into the allegations contained in the complaint, the BDPO sent his report dated 26.02.2009, recommending the action against respondent No.5. 7. Taking cognizance of the report, other material on record and having completed all the codal formalities, the Director removed respondent No.5 from the post of Sarpanch, by way of order(Annexure P-3). 8. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-3), respondent No.5 filed the Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2010 3 appeal, without impleading the petitioner-complainant as a party. Not only that, the Appellate Authority has accepted the appeal, without issuing any notice or providing any opportunity to the petitioner-complainant and reinstated respondent No.5 on the post of Sarpanch, by means of impugned order(Annexure P-4). 9. What is not disputed here is that such complainants were held to be the aggrieved/necessary parties in this regard, in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in cases Darshan Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 170, Ram Phal Versus Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Har., 1996(1) PLR 233 and again reiterated by this Court in case Guddu Sarpanch and others Versus State of Punjab and others, (2011-2) PLR 132. 10. Meaning thereby, the petitioner-complainant was an aggrieved and necessary party in the matter. The Appellate Authority ought to have issued notice and provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-complainant, before deciding the appeal against him, in view of the principle of natural justice. In this manner, the Appellate Authority has committed illegality in passing an adverse order against the petitioner-complainant in this relevant connection. 11. It is now well-settled principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting any person, can be passed by a public authority, without affording him a reasonable opportunity to represent his case. As a general rule, an authority entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or empowered to make an order which prejudicially affects rights of any individual or visits him with civil/democratic consequences, is duty bound to act in consonance with basic rules of natural justice. He should be given an opportunity to pursue his case. This minimum requirement of hearing is fundamental in nature, meant for just decision of the real controversy between the parties, which forms an integral part of concept of rule of law. 12. Therefore, to me, the argument of the learned counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2010 4 petitioner that the impugned order(Annexure P-4) is not only illegal and arbitrary, but against the principle of natural justice as well, has considerable force and the contrary contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents “stricto-sensu” liable to be and are hereby repelled. Hence, it is held that the impugned order (Annexure P-4) passed at the back of the petitioner-complainant, cannot legally be maintained in the manner indicated hereinabove, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. To my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority, for its fresh decision, after impleading the petitioner-complainant, as a party. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the appeal, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned order(Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Appellate Authority(respondent No.1), to decide the appeal afresh, after impleading and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner- complainant, in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. 14. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority(respondent No.1) on 06.06.2011 for further proceedings. 15. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the functioning of the post of Sarpanch. 16. Needless to mention here that, nothing recorded hereinabove would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present controversy. May 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No