PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P-14), passed by Financial Commissionerrespondent No.2, upholding the order dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure P- 13), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab-respondent No.3, whereby resolution dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-8) and 29.6.2009 (Annexure P-12), were declared legal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of this matter, are that Gram Sabha of village Ramgarh, Block Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh (Nawanshahar), vide its resolution No. 3 dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), decided to shift the cremation ground of the village from Khasra No. 7//7/1/2, measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas, to khasra No. 11//11/1, measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas. However, this resolution No. 3 dated 30.12.2008 was opposed by as many as 34 persons of the village, vide a self contained representation dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-9). Again, another representation dated 4.2.2009 (Annexure P-10), signed by more than 50 persons, was sent to the authorities concerned opposing the shifting of the cremation ground. Apprehending that the above said representations may not be considered in the right perspective, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 199 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj, Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking cancellation of the above said resolution No. 3 dated 30.12.2008. This petition dated 14.5.2009 is appended as Annexure P-11. However, it seems that during the pendency of the above said petition before Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjabrespondent No.3, another resolution No. 2 dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P-12), came to be passed by the Gram Sabha on the same lines, as the earlier Resolution No.3 was passed. This fact was also brought to the notice of respondent No.3, before whom the above said petition under Section 199 of the Act, filed by the petitioner, was pending decision. The above said petition filed under Section 199 of the Act, was dismissed by respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure P-13).

(3.) Dissatisfied with the above said order, petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner under Section 199 (4) of the Act against the order dated 3.9.2010, passed by respondent No.3, but this revision petition was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P- 14).