RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, branded as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents No. 1 to 3 to initiate proceedings under Sections 16, 172, 172-A, 189 and 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against respondent No. 4 a former President of Municipal Committee, Sunam, for having made alleged encroachment upon the government land and for constructing his house in violation of the site plan, got sanctioned by him from the municipality.

(2.) THE petitioner retired as Deputy District Attorney and is presently a practising lawyer in the Courts at Sunam, District Sunam; there is a property of the Government of Punjab, known as 'Boarding House' for Government High School for boys at Sunam, however, the same is not used as a Boarding House as Government School has been opened in the rural area; the aforementioned property was in possession of the P.W.D., Government of Punjab and is still shown as a government property at Serial No. 367 in the municipal records for the year 1986-87; that the building of the Boarding House was in a dilapidated condition and its debris was removed by respondent No. 4, who turned it into a vacant site; respondent No. 4, thereafter, allegedly encroached upon the vacant land; the petitioner felt aggrieved against the encroachment of the government property by respondent No. 4 prompting him to approach this Court through C.W.P. No. 11034 of 1996; the aforementioned writ petition came up for hearing after notice before this Court on December 17, 1996 and was disposed of in the following terms :-

(3.) HOWEVER , despite the above reproduced direction issued by this Court, representation of the petitioner was not decided; he pursued the matter with respondent No. 2 by producing the relevant documents including his written submissions (Annexure P-4); meanwhile, with a view to help respondent No. 4, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 3, through its Clerk under Sections 172, 195 and 221 of the Act; this complaint was, however, not filed by respondent No. 3 himself; the representation moved by the petitioner was finally decided by respondent No. 2 vide an order dated December 17, 1997 (Annexure P-7); the aforementioned order reveals that respondent No. 2 refused to take any action in the matter on the pretext that the complaint had already been filed by a Clerk of the Municipality against respondent No. 4; the petitioner, therefore, served a notice upon respondent No. 2, informing him that the directions issued by this Court had not been complied with; however, the contention of the petitioner mentioned in the legal notice too has been rejected vide order dated April 28, 1998 (Annexure P-8) and the complaint filed against respondent No. 4 was also withdrawn vide order dated April 22, 1998 (Annexure P-9); Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the official respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court through this third round of litigation.