RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Narain has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated September 16, 1975, passed by Director of Panchayats, Punjab under section 102(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') removing him from the membership of Gram Panchayat Benganwali.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Ram Narain, petitioner was elected a member of the Panchayat of village Benganwali in the year 1972-73. Earlier to that, his brother Surja Ram had filed a suit in the Civil Court at Fazilka against the Gram Panchayat, Benganwali, seeking permanent injunction restraining it from dispossessing him from the land in dispute, otherwise than in due course of law and further restraining it from leasing out the land in dispute to somebody else. During the course of the trial of the suit, Ram Narain, petitioner was summoned as a witness by Surja Ram. He appeared in Court and made a statement. The suit of Surja Ram was decreed and an injunction against the Gram Panchayat restraining it from dispossessing Surja Ram except in accordance with the law, was issued. However, prayer for injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from leasing out the land in dispute was declined. The Gram Panchayat passed a Resolution on December 1, 1974 that the petitioner should be removed from the membership of the Gram Panchayat. Director of Panchayats, Punjab, issued show cause notice dated June 25, 1975 to the petitioner. He filed a reply on July 14, 1975. However, the petitioner was astonished to receive an order from Director of Panchayats dated September 16, 1975 stating that the petitioner had been removed from the membership of the Panchayat under Section 102(2) of the Act because by making a false statement in the Civil Court, the petitioner had acted against the public and the Panchayat interest because the land happened to be under the unauthorised occupation of his brother. Aggrieved, Ram Narain, has filed this present petition.

(3.) Mr. P.N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated September 16, 1975, is a nullity because it has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. Before passing the order, the petitioner has not been heard. The order visits the petitioner with civil consequences. Elaborating this contention he has argued that the notice issued on September 11, 1975 was received by the petitioner on September 17, 1975. It had required the petitioner to appear before the Director of Panchayats on September 16, 1975 at Ghal Khurd. The Director has not given a positive finding that the petitioner had been served with this notice.