GRAM PANCHAYAT SUNGARPUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Gram Panchayat, Sungarpur tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani, is the petitioner approaching this Court under Art.220 of the Constitution for its power to introduce 'prohibition' in the area within its jurisdiction, stands hindered by the action taken by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Haryana, respondent No. 1.

(2.) Briefly stated, the circumstances in which the Gram Panchayat has come to this Court are these. On July 13, 1986, the Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution to the effect that the Government be asked not to open any liquor shop within the jurisdiction of village Sungarpur for the year 1987-88. The Gram Panchayat claims that a copy of the resolution was sent to respondents 1 and 2. The request was reiterated by another unanimous resolution on Sept. 16, 1986, and the same was sent to the respondents. In Feb., 1987 allegedly the Excise and Taxation Commissioner summoned the members of the Panchayat to hear them and he was told about the rigid stand of the petitioner Panchayat. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-respondent 2, however, auctioned liquor vend in village Sungarpur on Mar. 1987, which was obtained by respondent 3. Challenging the action as also the auction, the petitioner-Panchayat asserts its powers under S.26 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (as applicable to the State of Haryana). The said provision reads as follows :-

(3.) Except to the fact that a resolution was passed by the Panchayat in the first instance on July 18, 1986, the respondents have not denied the other allegations of the petitioner. The fact remains that respondents 1 and 2 were apprised of the resolution of the Panchayat within this stipulated time and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, became seisin of the dispute. That a hearing was granted to the Panchayat is also not a dispute. The point which the Panchayat seeks to raise is that the resolution passed by it under the provisions of S.26 is binding on the Government and no auction could have been held by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner so as to enforce his opinion so as to trample down the resolution of the Panchayat.