CHAMAN LAL AND SONS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated September 12, 1972 (Annexure 'a' ).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is the owner of a brick-kiln situated in village Sidhwan, tehsil and district Gurdaspur, which it purchased from M/s R. K. Brothers Amritsar. It is situated on a site measuring 11/2 killas belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Sidhwan (hereinafter referred to as 'the gram Panchayat' ). On February 4, 1972, the site was auctioned by the Gram panchayat at 10. 00 A. M. at village Sidhwan after proclamation, dated December 19,1971. The petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 2500/- per annum for a period of three years which was accepted by a resolution of even date. An agreement was also executed on February 13, 1972, between them. An amount of Rs. 2,000/was paid in advance for the year 1972-73 to the Panchayat on February 13, 1972. The petitioner is carrying on his business of brick-kiln in accordance with the terms of the agreement and licence. An application was filed by Kartar Singh respondent, to the Deputy Commissioner for suspension of the resolution, dated February 4, 1972, passed by the Gram Panchayat. The Deputy Commissioner suspended the resolution and stayed the petitioner from manufacturing bricks. The said order is illegal and void as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard that the order violates the principles of natural justice and that the order is not a speaking order.

(3.) A return has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner in which it is stated that he suspended the resolution of the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 97 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that he had the jurisdiction to do so. A notice was also given to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot file a writ petition as it was not necessary to send a notice to it. Kartar Singh respondent, has also filed a similar reply as was given by the Deputy Commissioner. He took up another plea also that the order of respondent had been confirmed by the Director of Panchayats, and that the petitioner had no right to challenge the said order of the Deputy Commissioner without challenging the order of the Director.