ZORAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has arisen in the following circumstances :-

(2.) Shri R.N. Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised three jurisdiction points to challenge the orders and action of the respondents. These are :-

(3.) With regard to the first point raised, it is to be noticed that section 105 of the Act, as it then stood, authorised a District Panchayat Officer concerned to assess by order in writing, the amount due from a member of a Gram Panchayat on account of loss, waste or misapplication of any money or property belonging to the Gram Panchayat if such loss, waste or misapplication was a consequence of the member's neglect or misconduct while as a member. The precise objection is that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer who purported to have issued the notices, Annexures P-1 and P-2, was not District Panchayat Officer. It need be mentioned here that the designated officer "District Panchayat Officer" had not been defined in the Act. However, the existence of such designated officers is a matter beyond doubt. The State in its return has appended a notification dated 30th October, 1959, Annexure R-8 to show that the Governor of Punjab had been pleased to merge the posts of District Panchayat Officer and Block Development Officers with effect from 1st November, 1959 and had thereby conferred upon the Block Development Officers, the powers, duties and functions in their block areas of District Panchayat Officers. The said notification puts the matter beyond doubt that the Block Development Officers and District Panchayat Officers were the same functionaries. Thus the notices issued by the Block Development Officer, Annexures P.1 and P.2, were issued by the District Panchayat Officer within the meaning of Section 105 of the Act. The contention raised merits dismissal on that score.