HARBANS KAUR KAINTH SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing orders Annexure P-4 dated 10.4.2001 and Annexure P-5 dated 12.9.2001 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahr (respondent No. 2) and the Director-cum- Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ram Raipur, Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahr in the election held in June, 1998. Since then, she had been discharging the functions of the office of Sarpanch smoothly and spending the grants for the purposes the same were given. In 1998, one of the panches, namely, Shri Nirmal Singh, who is an influential person, went to Canada without any prior information to the Gram Panchayat and he returned only in March, 2001. His absence was reported to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide resolution dated 26.7.2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Gram Panchayat, but no action was taken against him. Instead, vide his letter dated 30.3.2001, respondent No. 3 reported that quorum of Gram Panchayat, Ram Raipur was not complete because four members were on each side and Sarv Shri Surinder Singh, Nirmal Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Smt. Kulwinder Kaur (all Panches) requested through a joint statement that an Administrator may be appointed to complete the pending development works. In his letter, respondent No. 3 also recommended for appointment of an Administrator. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 passed order dated 10.4.2001 (Annexure P4) under Section 200(1) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') appointing Shri Devi Dayal, V.D.O. Block Nawanshahr as Administrator of Gram Panchayat Ram Raipur for completing the pending works. The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 201 of the Act against order dated 10.4.2001 was dismissed vide order dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure P-5) by the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department.

(3.) SINCE no one had appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service, they were proceeded ex parte and the writ petition was admitted by the Division Bench for hearing vide order dated 29.1.2002.