Harnam Singh vs Gurnam Singh

Chopra, J.—Harnam Singh petitioner was convicted by the Panchayat of Machaki Malsinghwali for demolishing a Khal, in their village and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. The convict presented an appeal to the District Magistrate which was dismissed and has now come with a petition to this Court.

It is contended by Mr. Ram Niwas, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Panchayat was not empowered to convict the accused for demolishing a ''Khal'' and has. therefore contended that the conviction which was without jurisdiction, should be set aside. On going through the Patiala Panchayat Act (No. XIII of 2000) I am of the opinion that there is much force in the contention of the learned counsel. The powers for convicting a person for certain offences are given by S. 21 of the said Act. It authorises the Panchayat to convict any person who disobeys a notice of the Panchayat issued under S. 19 or a general order made under S. 20 of the Act. The maximum sentence that can be inflicted in such a case is Rs. 25/-. No notice could be issued by the Panchayat under S. 19 for the demolition of a ''Khal'' and no such order could also be made under S. 20 of the Act. The conviction of the petitioner under S. 21 was, therefore, beyond the scope of the Act and outside the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. Shri Chetan Das Assistant to the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent has frankly conceded that the Panchayat had acted without jurisdiction and that the conviction was, therefore, illegal.

As regards the powers of this Court to interfere in the order in question reference may be made to S. 49 of the Panchayat Act which excludes the powers of a revisional Court to interfere in any order made by a Panchayat under the Act. This provision, however, is in contravention of the general provision of superintendence given to the High Court by Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and in such a case the latter must prevail. The powers of administration given to the High Court over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction are not confined to administrative matters only. Patent errors of law committed by any Court subordinate to the High Court and the miscarriage resulting there from, must be corrected by this Court under the powers conferred by Art. 227 referred to above. This point has also been conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent.

In the result this petition is accepted and the conviction of the petitioner by the Panchayat is set aside. The fine if paid, shall be remitted.