Charan Singh vs State of Punjab

Gurnam Singh, J.

Elections to the Gram Panchayat Budhanpur Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala, were held on 23.6.1972 and Charan Singh, Raghbir Singh and Nasib Singh petitioners and Ram Singh, respondent No. 4 were elected as Panches and Balbir Singh, respondent No. 3, was elected as Sarpanch.

Accordingly to the petitioners Balbir Singh Sarpanch took charge of the office of Sarpanch from the exSarpanch on 30.7.1972 in their presence and the presence of respondent No. 4 and that they signed the register of proceedings to the effect that the charge was taken by the Sarpanch on that day. Further accordingly to them the Sarpanch was in minority so he alongwith the Secretary for the Panchayat manoeuvred and manipulated to forge a resolution coopting Smt. Assi, respondent No. 5, as lady Panch on that very day and incorporated that fact in the proceeedings of the register which was signed by them, that they learnt about it on 10.8.1972 when the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajpura, called the members of Gram Panchayat, that they immediately moved an application to the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura, informing him that the Sarpanch had forged a resolution regarding the cooption of lady Panch, that the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), marked their application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajpura, for his report and that on receiving his report, the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura, suspended the execution of resolution dated 30.7.1972 passed by the Panchayat. On 1.12.1972, on learning that the order of the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura, has been rescinded by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, the petitioners filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said order, copy of which is annexure B, on the ground that the Director of Panchayats, Punjab, passed the said order on their back.

The respondents contested the petition on the grounds that the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was summoned for 30.7.1972 for coopting a lady Panch and the agenda was duly notified, that the members of the Panchayat unanimously coopted Mst. Assi as lady Panch, that the execution of the resolution was wrongly suspended by the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura, and that the cooption of Mst. Assi as lady Panch was rightly regularised by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab. The Director of Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, in his affidavit further averred that he had passed the order under section 97(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, after thorough scrutiny of the relevant records and considering the explanation offered by the Government and that there is no provision to give hearing in such cases.

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that no notice for summoning the meeting of the Panchayat as required under Rule 6 of the Government Rules for coopting a lady member was given to the members of the Panchayat, that in fact the members had been called by the Sarpanch at the time of taking charge from the ExSarpanch and that the Sarpanch in connivance with the Secretary incorporated the resolution for coopting the lady member and got the signatures of the petitioners and the other member. He further urged that the petitioners complained to the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), who suspended the execution of the resolution passed by the Panchayat for coopting the lady Panch after obtaining the report from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajpura, but the Director of Panchayats, Punjab, set aside the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura, without giving them (the petitioners) any opportunity to hear them. Thus according to him the order passed by the Director of Panchayats is liable to be set aside.

No record has been produced to show that any notice was given to the members of the Panchayat for convening a meeting for coopting a lady Panch. However, the register of the Gram Panchayat is before me and from its perusal it is evident that on 30.7.1972 all the elected members of the Panchayat were present and they passed four resolutions including the resolution for co opting Mst. Assi as a lady Panch. The petitioners, case is that they did not know anything about the cooption of Mst. Assi as a lady Panch and learnt about that fact on 10.8.1972 and made a complaint about that to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura, on that very day. The SubDivisional Officer (Civil), obtained the report of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to explain the viewpoint of the Panchayat, which he did. The Director of Panchayats has a power under section 97(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act to confirm, modify or rescind the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). Consequently the Director of Panchayats, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 97(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act upheld the cooption of Mst. Assi as lady Panch. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), had taken action on the complaint made by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners was that they had not co opted Mst. Assi as a lady Panch. Thus the petitioners were the aggrieved persons in the cooption of Mst. Assi as a lady Panch. Admittedly the Director of Panchayats had given no information to the petitioners before passing the impugned order, copy of which is Annexure B. The SubDivisional Officer (Civil) had suspended the execution of the resolution and thereby accepted the contention of the petitioners. Thus the failure of the Director of Panchayats to issue any notice to the petitioners while dealing with the matter has prejudiced the case of the petitioners and such a procedure is against the rules of natural justice and fair play. Rule 33 of the Gram Panchayat Rules makes it incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner or the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), concerned to hear the application at the appointed time and place which means that the Deputy Commissioner or the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), should decide the matter after full hearing at which not only the Block Development and Panchayat Officer but the party aggrieved has as well a right to place its case. Thus the procedure provided under section 97 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act is not purely administrative. In Civil Writ No. 903 of 1965 Santosh v. The State of Punjab etc., decided by a Division Bench of this Court on August 26, 1966, it has been held that "it is true that neither the Act nor the rules framed thereunder lay down the procedure which the Director is to follow in exercising his power under subsection (2) of Section 97, yet the omission does not warrant the assumption that he need not afford an opportunity of putting forward its case even to the party who is likely to suffer by his decision."

In the aforesaid writ petition the order of the Director was quashed as the same was made by the Director without notice to the petitioners to whose prejudice it operated and also that it was not a speaking order. In the instant case no doubt the Director of Panchayats has given his reasoning for holding the resolution in dispute as valid but he did not give any opportunity to the petitioners, who were the aggrieved persons, to put in their objections. Thus the order passed by the Director of Panchayats suffers from an illegality as the rules of natural justice required that the petitioners should have been heard before any such order was passed. The impugned order of the Director of Panchayats dated 30.11.1972, copy of which is annexure B is, therefore, set aside and it is further directed that the Director of Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, should hear the petitioners before passing any further order. The parties have been Director to appear before the Director of Panchayats on May 6, 1976, who will decide the case as early as possible. No order as to costs.