SURAM SINGH Vs. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Suram Singh and is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 1962 of Gram Panchayat, Samtana Kalan, district Kangra, and the order dated 26th June, 1962 of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur, whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the Petitioner against the above -mentioned order of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to. the present petition are that on 2nd November, 1961, the above - mentioned Panchayat made a conditional order under Sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (4 of 1953,), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating that the Petitioner had narrowed the public thoroughfare by constructing a danga upon it. The Petitioner was directed to remove that encroachment and in case he had any objection to appear before the Panchayat on 17th November, 1961. A report was made on 6th November, 1961 by the Chaukidar that the Petitioner had refused to accept that notice. Accordingly on 2nd April, 1962, the members of the panchayat, after noting that the Petitioner was absent and had refused to accept notice, passed an order -stating that the Petitioner had taken unlawful pas -session of the site in dispute. The Petitioner was thus found guilty of making encroachment on a thoroughfare. He was fined Rs. 25 under Section 23 of the Act. It was also ordered that if the encroachment continued as before, an additional fine of Re 1 per day be imposed upon him.

(3.) MR . Vikram Chand Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has raised two contentions at the hearing of the petition in this Court. It is urged that the Panchayat could not by its order dated 2nd April, 1962 impose a daily fine of Re 1 upon the Petitioner and that Respondent No. 1 was biased against the Petitioner. For the sake of convenience I would deal first with the latter contention, which is contained in Clause (IV) of paragraph 7 of the petition. It is stated therein that Respondent No. 1 was biased against the Petitioner as the Petitioner had appeared against it in criminal proceedings. Respondent No. 1 is the Gram Panchayat of Samtana Kalan through its Sarpanch and it is obvious that the Petitioner could not have appeared as a witness against the Gram Panchayat in criminal proceedings. Mr. Mahajan has tried to clarify it by saying at the hearing of the petition that the Petitioner appeared as a witness not against the Gram Panchayat but against the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. The date on which the Petitioner appeared as a witness has not been mentioned. It is also not clear as to which was the Court and what was the nature of the case in which the Petitioner appeared as a witness. No objection on that score, it appears, was taken either before the Panchayat or before the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate. No application for transfer of the case also seems to have been filed on that ground when the case was pending before the Panchayat. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the order is vitiated by bias or personal interest and the Petitioner can derive no benefit from Section 67 of the Act to which reference has been made by his learned Counsel in this connection.