MUNSHA SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SUBHANPUR, AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution impugning the order of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, declining to decide on merits the revision filed before him by the Petitioner under Sections 51 and 97 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act No. IV of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), from the order of the Gram Panchayat, Subhanpur, District Kapurthala (sic) 11th April 1962 imposing on the Petitioner under Section 23 (sic) a fine of Rs. 25/ - and also a recurring fine of Re. 1/ - till the construction of the water -channel in question.

(2.) I need not go into and discuss the merits (sic)out case because, in my opinion, the learned District Magistrate has on (sic) erroneous and illegal grounds declined to discharge his duty under Section 51 of the Act. It may here be mentioned that according to the District Magistrate's order, the Gram Panchayat having acted judicially while passing the impugned order, a challenge to such an order can be made in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution with the result that it was unnecessary for the District Magistrate himself to dispose of the revision petition on the merits. This in my opinion, betrays a complete misunderstanding of the correct legal position. Narain Singh Hira Singh etc. v. The State : 61 P.L.R. 93: A.I.R. 1958 P&H 372 (F.B.), a Full Bench decision, on which the learned District Magistrate has relied for his view, merely lays down that the Gram Panchayat while proceeding under Sections 21 and 23 of the Act acts judicially and, therefore, a petition challenging its orders under either of those sections would lie to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. These observations were, however, made as a result of the challenge to the power of the High Court to interfere with such orders on the ground that they were of an administrative or executive nature and that, therefore, neither Article 227 of the Constitution nor Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred on the High Court a power to interfere with those orders. That decision is no authority for the proposition that the District Magistrate should because of the existence of Article 227 of the Constitution decline to exercise the power of supervision conferred on him by the Act. It appears to me that the learned District Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts in Narain Singh Hira Singh's case and to the discussion contained in the judgment with the result that he did not grasp the true ratio of the decision of the Full Bench, otherwise I do not think he would have so unceremoniously declined to dispose of the petition on the merits.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, I have no option except to allow this petition and setting aside the order of the District Magistrate dated 13 -3 -1962 to send the case back to him for decision on the merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.