KARAM SINGH Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is most frivolous and misconceived.

(2.) THE first petitioner was a Panch of the Gram Panchayat Chhota Phul. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the residents of the village. According to the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners dug a pit on the road thereby causing damage to the road. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat issued a notice Under Section 109(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken against them and to lead evidence, if any, in support of their case. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before the Gram Panchayat and after recording the statement of Bakhtawar Singh, the Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat asked the petitioners to execute a personal bond so that the matter could be closed, but the petitioners refused to execute a bond and they also did not cross -examine Bakhtawar Singh though an opportunity was given to them to cross -examine. Thereupon, the Gram Panchayat imposed a penalty of Rs. 20/ - on each of the petitioners for the damage caused to the property of Gram Panchayat vide order dated 28.6.1979. Against the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar, unsuccessfully. Therefore, the petitioners, filed this writ petition. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Under Section 42 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, the Panchayat has no power to take cognizance of any offence under the Indian Penal Code in which either the complainant or the accused is a public servant. No doubt Under Section 3(1), a Panch or Sarpanch are included in the definition of public servant. Therefore, the first petitioner is a public servant. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the act complained of amounts to any offence under the Indian Penal Code so as to attract Section 42 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the act complained of the against the first petitioner comes within the definition of 'mischief as defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is an offence falling under the Indian Penal Code, which cannot be taken cognizance of by the Gram Panchayat -

(3.) IT is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Gram Panchayat cannot be a judge in its own cause but a statutory provisions has been made Under Section 109 empowering the Gram Panchayat to take action against any person who causes any damage to the property belonging to the Gram Panchayat or any street. He relied upon a decision in Ram Bhagat v. The Gram Panchayat, Hibatpur and Anr., 1965 CLJ 582. But in that case the title of the Gram Panchayat was in dispute. There, actually the persons removed the Shishan trees standing on the land. The question was whether the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat. In such circumstances the Court held that the Gram Panchayat cannot determine its own title which was in dispute. But in the case in hand, the title of the Gram Panchayat to the street is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that the petitioners dug a pit. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable.