GRAM SABHA Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Gram Panchayat of village Sultanpur has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) at Hansi respondent No. 1, whereby he had assumed jurisdiction under Section 97 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. 4 of 1953) (hereinafter briefly described as the Act) to suspend some resolutions passed by the petitioner Panchayat proposing action against Bahal Singh, respondent No. 2, under Sections 21 and 23 of the Act for the removal of a heap of rubbish which had been dumped by respondent No. 2 in front of his house and which was proving an encroachment in a public lane and which was likely to affect public health. It has been alleged that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) is without jurisdiction, ultravires and illegal on the grounds stated in paragraph 10 of the petition. The respondents have not put in appearance and nobody is contesting the petition on their behalf.

(2.) Resolution No. 19 dated 18.3.1967 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition) records that during a routine round of the area it had been noticed by the petitioner-Panchayat that there was a heap of rubbish lying in front of the house of respondent No. 2 and that this was likely to injure public health. It was resolved to take action under Section 21 of the Act and a notice was issued to respondent No. 2 to remove the heap of cowdung before 3.4.1967 or to show cause before the Panchayat on the said date why action according to law should not be taken against him. The resolution is signed by the Sarpanch and seven members besides the Secretary. Resolution dated 3.4.1967 (Annexure 'B') then records that respondent No. 2 had refused service of the notice but was persisting in the commission of the criminal offence and that notice may now issue by registered post for 10.4.1967. This resolution is also signed by all the persons who had subscribed their hand to resolution No. 19 dated 18.3.1967. A meeting of the Panchayat was held again on 10.4.1967 and it is recorded in the resolution of that date (copy Annexure 'C') that in spite of service of notice by registered post respondent No. 2 had not appeared before the Panchayat and that he was persisting in the offence and that a fine may, therefore, be imposed on him under Section 23 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 was called upon by this notice to pay the fine of Rs. 25/- and further directed to remove the rubbish heap within 8 day failing which he was liable to a recurring penalty of Rs. 1/- per day until compliance. As respondent No. 2 had not paid the fine or complied with the directions of the Panchayat, another meeting was held on 18.4.1967 and it was resolved (vide resolution copy Annexure 'D') that the order with regard to imposition of recurring penalty of Rs. 1/- per day be enforced. The arrears of penalty had amounted to more than Rs. 450/- when resolution (copy Annexure 'E') was passed on 18.6.68 that action may be taken under Section 48 of the Act for the recovery of the fine.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 had, in the meanwhile, filed an application under Section 97 of the Act with respondent No. 1, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) at Hansi. An objection was raised by the Gram Panchayat that orders passed by them against respondent No. 2 had been passed in judicial proceedings or were of a judicial nature and that the Sub-Divisional Officer could not, therefore, interfere with the orders of the Panchayat under Section 97 of the Act and that the resolution passed by the Panchayat under Sections 21 and 23 of the Act could not be suspended by him. Respondent No. 1 has recorded a detailed order and has assumed jurisdiction under Section 97 of the Act. The main reasons given are that the Panchayat could not take action suo motu and that they could not be a judge in their own case.