SATNAM SINGH @ KALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who is a Member Panchayat Samiti, Block Ludhiana (II), has filed this writ petition against order dated 29.1.2003 (Annexure P/3), vide which it was ordered by respondent No. 1 that he is not suitable to remain member of Panchayat Samiti. He was further restrained from participating in any meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on the ground that he had caused loss to the Gram Panchayat (Local Authority).

(2.) IT is pleaded case of the petitioner that he contested election of Member Panchayat Samiti, which was held in June, 2002 and won that election. Meeting of the Block Samiti was fixed for 28.1.2003 to elect its office-bearers. Only 11 members attended the meeting on that day, for want of quorum, meeting was adjourned to 30.1.2003. Petitioner has averred that the total number of members, entitled to cast vote at the time of electi, on were 20 and the members of his group were 11 in number. Due to that, he declared himself as a candidate for the post of Vice Chairman. It is further stated that when opposite group saw an apparent defeat, respondent No. 4 in a very mala fide manner, moved one complaint, on frivolous grounds, against the petitioner before respondent No. 1, who without applying his mind, passed the impugned order, vide which the petitioner was suspended and restrained from participating in any meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. That order was conveyed when the meeting was in progress on 30.1.2003 and consequently, the petitioner was restrained from participating in that meeting. It has further been stated that thereafter, election was held and for the post of Vice Chairman, candidate of both the groups secured 10 votes each and after draw of lots, one Ram Kishan was declared elected as Vice Chairman.

(3.) UPON notice, respondents put up their appearance and have filed their written statements, wherein they have tried to justify the suspension order, Annexure P/3. It has been stated that one FIR No. 19 dated 23.2.2001 under Section 379 of IPC was pending against the petitioner. That FIR was recorded at the instance of Mining Officer, Department of Industries, Punjab, wherein, it was alleged against the petitioner that he, by removing sand had caused loss to the Department. In the written statement, it is further averred by the respondents that he had already been put under suspension as Sarpanch of the village and in view of serious allegations, order Annexure P/3 was rightly passed by the competent authority, while exercising the powers under Section 113(1) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short 1994 Act).