STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Bijay Singh, Sardar Singh, Ram Lal and Ram Kishan (now respondents) and quashing certain orders passed by the Director of pahcnayats, Punjab, the latter is one of the appellants and the other appellant being the State of Punjab. Both these were respondents to the writ petition.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been referred to a Full Bench by an order of the Division bench dated the 17th July, 1962, in view of the fact that Civil Writ No. 221 of 1962 Jai Ram Dass v. Director of Panchayats, in which a somewhat similar question had been raised, had been referred to a Full Bench.

(3.) BIJAY Singh was elected as Sarpanch and the other three respondents, that is, sardar Singh, Ram Lal and Ram Kishan, as the Panches of the Gram Panchayat of village Dinod, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hissar. Dy an order of the Director of panchayats, Punjab thereinafter to be reierrca to as the Director) under Subsection (1) of Section 102 of the Pun]ao Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, (Punjab Act no. IV of 1953) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) dated the 3rd March 1950, each of these men was suspended and debarred from taking part in any act or proceedings of the Panchayat during the period of the suspension. Then on the 23rd July, 1962, the Director passed an order (copy Annexure 'b'), which was in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of section 102 of the Act, and each of these four respondents was removed from the office of Ranches of the Gram Ranchayat Dinod. An order under Sub-section (3) of section 103 of the Act was also passed to the effect that they should be disqualified for re-election to the said Panchayat for a period of three years from the date of their removal. These are the impugned orders in the case and the ground, given in the petition and in these orders for the action taken, was that in a certain declaratory suit, instituted by the proprietors of the village in respect of the village common land, they had, ignoring the interest of the Panchayat, admitted the plaintiff's claim which resulted in the passing of a decree against the panchayat and thereby the Panchayat had been deprived of the advantage of the common land measuring 2000 bighas. There was an ancillary charge against the sarpanch that he had wasted the fund of me Gram Panchayat by unnecessarily engaging the services or a lawyer for pursuing the case in Court.