CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Shiv Kumar vs Commissioner and Secretary to Haryana Govt.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 May 1997 · Citation: (1997) 117 PLR 486

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K. Agarwal, J · Amarjeet Chaudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 51(5)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 2984 of 1997
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 351 words

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.1.1997, copy Annexure P-6 to the writ petition, vide which the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal had reinstated the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Indri, District Karnal and also for quashing the order dated 27.1.1997, copy Annexure P-7 to the writ petition, vide which the appeal filed by him against the impugned order of reinstating the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Indri, District Karnal, was also dismissed.

2.

On notice of motion having been issued, respondents have put in appearance and filed written statement.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

3.

From the perusal of order of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Departments, it is observed that while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, had directed respondent No. 1 to comply with the orders of the High Court dated 6.11.1996 and get the regular enquiry completed within the stipulated period.

4.

In the written statement filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Indri, it has been stated that the enquiry against respondent No. 3 could not be concluded as respondent No. 3 is not cooperating with the enquiry.

5.

This Court vide its order dated 6.11.1996 had directed to complete the enquiry against the petitioner, respondent No. 3 herein, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, enquiry could not be completed as respondent No. 3, Jagir Singh has not cooperated with the enquiry and he has misused the order of stay granted to him. In this view of the matter, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal dated 7.1.1997, copy Annexure P-6, as well as of the Appellate Authority dated 27.1.1997, copy Annexure P-7, are quashed. However, it is directed that enquiry against respondent No. 3 be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.

Writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated above.