FEROZI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the facts are that the elections to the Gram Panchayat, Sisai-Bola, were held under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), on 24th December, 1960, wherein eight Panches, namely, Ferozi Lal son of Lala Jag Ram, Har Narain son of Maru, Dhan Singh adopted son of Malli, Pirbhu Dial son of Chhotu, Santoo son of Bauria, Chattar Singh son of Jug Lal, Dalip Singh son of Ujala and Smt. Dhan Kaur widow of Ch. Khem Chand, and one Sarpanch, namely, Jogi Ram son of Harnam were elected. They took charge of the Gram Panchayat on 12th January, 1961, and remained in office up to the end of December, 1963, when fresh elections were held. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Hansi-1, respondent No. 1, vide his order dated 6th October, 1969, assessed a sum of Rs. 7,768.40 against Jogi Ram under Section 105(2) of the Act on account of the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat by his neglect and ordered that it be recovered from him. Jogi Ram went up in appeal against that order to the Assistant Director of Panchayats, who partly accepted the appeal vide his order dated 10th March, 1970, and held that the amount be recovered not from Jogi Ram alone but from him and all the Panches. Thereafter, notices were issued by respondent No. 4 to the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 7,411.40 each. The petitioners have challenged the notices and the order of the Assistant Director dated 10th March, 1970, through this writ petition.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Director passed the order without in pleading the petitioners as parties. He further argues that the petitioners could not be burdened with the liability after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 105(4) of the Act.

(3.) I have considered the arguments. The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the order dated 10th March, 1970, could be passed by the Assistant Director without notice to the petitioners and other Panches. It is well-settled that a person cannot be fixed with a liability unless an opportunity is given to him to represent his case. In the present case, admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the Assistant Director without impleading the Panches as parties. Even no notice of the proceedings was given to them. That order is, therefore, illegal and liable to be set aside. Therefore, the notices issued in pursuance of that order are also liable to be set aside. The Assistant Director or the competent authority under the Act can decide the matter afresh after hearing all the concerned parties.