JAISI RAM Vs. A D M KATHUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitioners arise out of more or less connected maters and have been taken up together and will be decided by one common judgment.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner Jaisi Ram was the contractor of Basohli Town Area Committee and as his contract money was due, the Chairman Town Area Committee issued a writ of demand against the petitioner Jaisi Ram and forwarded it to the Magistrate for its realization under Section 34(1) of the Town Area Committee of 2011. It appears that the petitioners Ammer Chand and others were partners of the petitioner Jaisi Ram and had stood sureties for the payment of his dues to the Town Area Committee. In view of this contract between Ammer Chand and others and the petitioner Jaisi Ram, the Chairman Town Area Committee issued a writ of demand against Ammer Chand and others also and forwarded the same to be executed by the Magistrate at Basohli under section 34 (1) of the Town Area Act. Subsequently, an application for transfer was filed before the Additional District Magistrate by the petitioner Ammer Chand and others and the application was dismissed by the A.D. Magistrate who observed that the Magistrate should not start any proceedings against these petitioners. The petitioner Jaisi Ram went up to the District Magistrate for making a reference against the order of the Additional District Magistrate giving the directions referred to above and accordingly a reference has been made to this court for quashing the order of the Additional District Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to direct the Magistrate not to proceed against the petitioners Ammer Chand and others.

(3.) MR . Bhalgotra appearing for the petitioner Jaisi Ram submitted that the order passed by the Magistrate cannot be said to be without jurisdiction because under Section 34 (3) the petitioners Ammer Chand and others had a right to contest the liability to pay after depositing the amount. Similarly he has contended that as the Magistrate was exercising a special function under the Town Area Act his order could not be reversed dy the Additional District Magistrate nor would a transfer application even lie to the A D. M. while there may be some force in the second contention raised by Mr. Bhalgotra, the main point to be seen is as to whether or not the petitioners Ammer Chand and others could be proceeded against under Section 34 (1) of the Town Area Act. Sub section 1, 2 and 3 of section 34 of the Town Area Act 2011 run thus : -