Civil Writ Petition No.2662 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14th February, 2011 Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Another ....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Malkeet Singh Advocate for the petitioners. * * * M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the meetings of the Gram Panchayat of Village Shah Pur, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar were convened on different dates in order to discuss the agenda for the development works in the village and other relatable matters but the quorum was not complete on every occasion, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). As the four members Panchayat were not co-operating, therefore, petitioner-Amarjit Kaur, lady Sarpanch, moved an application dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jalandhar (for short the “DDPO”) (respondent No.3), in this context. 2. Not only, that Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.4) (for short the “BDPO”), vide letters bearing No.1355 dated 15.11.2010 and No.1153-59 dated 21.10.2010 reported the matter to DDPO that four Panches, namely, Ashok Kumar, Kamaljit, Bir Das and Smt. Sawarn Kaur showed their dissent with the working of the Sarpanch. Thus, the development work of the village has stopped. The grants for cremation grounds, sports club and for cleaning the ponds amounting to ` 1,06,025/- is lying un-utilized. 3. Therefore, vide letter dated 29.11.2010, the DDPO directed all the Civil Writ Petition No.2662 of 2011 2 Panches and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shah Pur to begin the development works in the village with the grants lying un-spent within 15 days and to submit the report in the office. In case, the Gram Panchayat was unable to begin the development works within a stipulated period, then it will be presumed that it is unable to carry on the development works at its own level. 4. What is not disputed here is that the Gram Panchayat did not commence the development work. Thereafter, finding no alternative, the DDPO in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 200 of the Act, appointed Sawinder Singh, S.E.P.O. (respondent No.5) as Administrator, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-2), the operative part of which is as under:- “After perusal of the statement of Sarpanch, all the Panches and keeping in view the report of BDPO and the case of Girdhari Lal versus Gram Panchayat Shah Pur pending in the court of Hon'ble Director Rural Development of Panchayat and keeping in view the interest of Panchayat, it appear that the Gram Panchayat has remained unsuccessful in carrying out its responsibility, due to which the grants lying with the Gram Panchayat are not being spent timely and as such the General Public is being deprived of the facilities available to them and the specified projects are likely to remain incomplete due to increase in the cost of the material. As per the report of the BDPO it is not possible to utilize the grants met for cremation ground. Even though the BDPO has recommended for appointment of administrator for this purpose. But the report of the BDPO with regard to sports club and spending of grant under the NREGA scheme, the reply submitted by the Sarpanch is not based on true facts, due to which the needy families are deprived of the employment guaranty under the NREGA scheme, which clearly shows the irresponsible attitude of the Sarpanch. Moreover due to lack of distribution of the pensionary funds the beneficiaries are not able to drawing benefit out of the funds allocated by the Government. The failliar of the Panchayat to carry out its responsibility and lack of proper pursuing the court case it is apprehended that the interest of justice would suffer heavily. Keeping in view the clear position and in context of the interest of the public the under have reached at the conclusion that it is justified to appoint the administrator for executing the developments works by Gram Panchayat Shahpur and defending the court case. Therefore I, Rajender Singh Batra, District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers under Section 200 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act 1994 appoint Sh. Sawinder S.E.P.O as Civil Writ Petition No.2662 of 2011 3 administrator of Gram Panchayat Shahpur for spending funds under RDF to the tune of Rs. 0.50 lacs for sports for cleanliness of the village pond with balance amount of Rs.12,500/- under the NREGA scheme and for the distribution of Pensionary amount till the unanimity in the Panchayat and it is directed that the report be sent to this office after completing the development works within thirty days. It is also made clear that in case the Gram Panchayat does not feel satisfied with the above order, the order may be challenge under Section 201 of the Punjab Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 before the Government.” 5. Petitioners Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch and Sohan Singh Panch, did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 7. However, the solitary argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, that since no opportunity was provided to the Panchayat to perform its duty, so, the impugned order (Annexure P-2) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the observations of this Court in case Jaspal Singh Panch and Others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 777, wherein it was observed that if the Panchayat makes a default in the performance of its duty, then DDPO, by an order in writing, fix the period for the performance of the duty and if it is not performed within a period so fixed, he may appoint any other person to perform the duty, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy. 9. As is evident from the record that in the wake of reports/letters dated 21.10.2010 and 15.11.2010, the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened to start the development works to utilize the grants already given by the Government but even then the four Panches refused to support the Sarpanch. Civil Writ Petition No.2662 of 2011 4 10. Not only that, the DDPO issued letter bearing No.8775-81/SC/2010 dated 29.11.2010 and directed the Sarpanch and all the Panches of the Gram Panchayat Shah Pur to commence the development works in the village with the grants lying un-utilized within a period of 15 days and to submit a report in the office, failing which, it will be presumed that Gram Panchayat is unable to utilize the amount of grants of the development scheme, but in vain and position remained the same. 11. It is a matter of fact that an amount of more than ` 1.5 lacs of grants was lying un-utilized meant for the indicated development scheme, but the Gram Panchayat did not commence the development in the work in the village. Therefore, the DDPO did not have any option but to appoint Administrator and has rightly appointed respondent No.5 as Administrator to complete the development works in the village, after issuing the due notice to them in this regard. To me, the development of the village, in pursuance of the grants granted by the Government, cannot possibly be delayed to allow the amount of grants to be lapsed on account of petty village politics of the Sarpanch/Panches. Finding no alternative, as the DDPO has rightly appointed the Administrator, therefore, no fault can be traced in this direction and impugned order (Annexure P-2) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to mention here that the respondents will take appropriate action against the erring Panches for not attending the requisite meeting and not to support the Sarpanch, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) February 14, 2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No