Civil Writ Petition No.21830 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21830 of 2010 Date of Decision:19.04.2011 Ram Parkash ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.K.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election, Narinder Singh, respondent No.4 was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Phulpur, District Jalandhar, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The petitioner claimed that since, respondent No.4 did not convene the requisite meetings of the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, so he made a complaint against him. After conducting the enquiry on the allegation contained in the complaint of the petitioner, the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development(respondent No.3) came to the conclusion that the Sarpanch did not conduct the indicated meetings as per Section Civil Writ Petition No.21830 of 2010 2 5 of the Act and submitted his enquiry report dated 26.05.2010(Annexure P-3) in this regard. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking cognizance of the enquiry report(Annexure P-3), the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat (respondent No.2)(for brevity “the Director”) suspended Narinder Singh (respondent No.4) from the post of Sarpanch, in exercise of his power under Section 20 of the Act vide order dated 26.09.2010(Annexure P-4). 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-4), respondent No.4 filed the appeal, without impleading the petitioner-complainant as a party. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab(respondent No.1)(for brevity “the Appellate Authority”) reinstated him(respondent No.4) on the post of Sarpanch, without issuing notice to the petitioner-complainant, by way of impugned order dated 11.10.2010(Annexure P-5). 5. The petitioner-complainant did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that in the wake of complaint of the petitioner-complainant, respondent No.3 conducted the enquiry and submitted his report(Annexure P-3), on the basis of which, the Director suspended respondent No.4 from the post of Sarpanch, by virtue of order(Annexure P-4). The appeal filed by him(respondent No.4) was accepted by the Appellate Authority by means of impugned order(Annexure P-5), without impleading the petitioner-complainant as a party, without issuing any notice or providing opportunity of being heard to him. 8. Meaning thereby, as the petitioner-complainant was the necessary Civil Writ Petition No.21830 of 2010 3 party, therefore, the Appellate Authority committed a legal error in accepting the appeal of respondent No.4, even without issuing notice to the petitioner- complainant, being an aggrieved party, in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in cases titled as Darshan Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, 2006(1) RCR(Civil) 170, Ram Phal Versus Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Har. 1996(1) PLR 233 and again reiterated by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15751 of 2010 titled as Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti, Block Amloh and others Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 08.02.2011. Therefore, 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, as per the doctrine of audi alteram partem. This matter was not res integra and is well- settled. 9. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.22278 of 2010 titled as Ajit Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 06.04.2011. Having considered the indicated legal position, it was ruled that the Appellate Authority was duty bound to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-complainant and in the absence of the same, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis-mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Therefore, the impugned order(Annexure P-5) cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. 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 Civil Writ Petition No.21830 of 2010 4 impugned order(Annexure P-5) is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to respondent No.1(Appellate Authority) to decide the matter afresh, after impleading and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-complainant and by passing a speaking order, in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. 12. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority(respondent No.1) on 24.05.2011 for further proceedings. 13. Needless to mention that nothing recorded here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. April 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE