Back
1976 Supreme(P&H) 119
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Tiwana, J.
Ratti Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ No. 3331 of 1973,
Decided On : OCTOBER 19, 1976
The Government's power to supersede a Gram Panchayat under section 103 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 must be exercised on the basis of valid grounds supported by material evidence, and not on extraneous considerations or non-existent facts.
Headnote:
GRAM PANCHAYAT SUPERSESSION - PUNJAB GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1952 - SECTION 103 - SUPERSESSION OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - GROUNDS FOR SUPERSESSION - DEVELOPMENT WORK - NON-SIGNING OF RESOLUTIONS - REFUSAL TO SIGN LEASE DEED - VALIDITY OF SUPERSESSION ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, members of Gram Panchayat Bangaon, challenged the notification issued by the State Government superseding their Gram Panchayat. The grounds for supersession were that the Panchayat had not done any development work since 1971, that four petitioners did not attend meetings and sign resolutions from 17th April 1972 to 11th May 1973, and that they refused to sign a lease deed on 26th April 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first charge was based on a non-existent fact as the Panchayat was not constituted in 1971 and could not have done any development work. The second charge was found to be imaginary as the majority of the Panchayat members supported the Sarpanch and could have signed the resolutions. The third charge was held to be unjustified as action could have been taken against the individual members who failed to comply with the order of the Social Education and Panchayat Officer, rather than superseding the entire Panchayat.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds for supersession of the Gram Panchayat were valid? 2. Whether the Government had material to support the conclusion of supersession?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government's order of supersession was based on non-existent facts, imaginary charges, and vague allegations. The court emphasized that the Government must have material to support its conclusion of supersession and that the exercise of its powers should not be guided by mala fides, extraneous considerations, or non-existent material.
Final Decision: The court quashed the notification superseding the Gram Panchayat and awarded costs of Rs. 200/- to the petitioners. However, the petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 100/- as costs to Shri Mehar Chand M.L.A., who was dragged into the litigation unnecessarily.
K.S.Tiwana, J.
1. The petitioners who are members of Gram Panchayat Bangaon, tehsil Fatehabad, district Hissar, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing Notification No. 57622-A published in the Haryana Government Gazette Extra- ordinary on September 17, 1973, copy Annexure E issued by the respondent No. 1, State of Haryana through Secretory to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, superseding the Gram Panchayat of village Bangaon.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they and respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1971. Petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have alleged that they opposed Shri Dalbir Singh now a Deputy Minister in the Central Government in his election for membership of the Parliament in the last general elections as they belonged to the opposition. Ram Lal, the out-going Sarpanch, had not delivered the proper accounts to the new sarpanch and a complaint made by the new Panchayat led to the audit of the Panchayat accounts, which revealed misappropriation of a large sum of money by the ex- Sarpanch. Respondent No. 5, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was also opposed to the petitioners and did not discharge his duties in a proper manner and his conduct too was reported to the authorities. Resolutions were also passed against respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 9, who is M.L.A. belonging to the ruling party also worked against the interests of the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 issued show-cause notice to the Gram Panchayat Bangaon, vide memo No. P.E. 2-73/49579 dated 9th July, 1973 which is Annexure C to the writ petition, through petitioner No. 1, as its Sarpanch requiring the Gram Panchayat to show-cause why it be not superseded. In the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice it was stated that no development work had been done by the Panchayat since 1971; that whenever any meeting of the Gram Panchayat was called for the development work the members of the Panchayat attended the meeting but did not sign the proceedings due to which no resolution could be passed and the development work could not be done; that 670 residents of the village out of its population of 1170 had turned against the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat contested the show-cause notice vide reply, copy of which is Annexure D to this petition. Showing a cause against the supersession. The Gram Panchayat made a demand for a regular inquiry in the allegations contained in the show-cause notice. The Gram Panchayat was ultimately superseded vide Notification No. 57622-A dated 17.9.1973, copy of which is Annexure E to the petition. The petitioners have now challenged the supersession on the ground that it was influenced by extraneous consideration and malice and that the two grounds mentioned in Annexure E could not be invoked for the supersession.
3. Respondent No. 2, Director of Panchayats, Haryana, filed written statement on its behalf and also on behalf of respondent No. 1. In that the contentions of the petitioner were controverted and it was stressed that the show-cause notice and supersession of the Gram Panchayat were bona fide. The justification for the supersession of the Gram Panchayat was reiterated. Supporting the grounds of supersession which was based on the fact-finding inquiry, it was stated that on 26.4.1973 the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat was auctioned for lease but the petitioners refused to sign the lease deed. On that very day Social Education and Panchayat Officer requested the petitioners to sign the proceedings book but they refused to do so. The respondents set up a case that the petitioners attended the meeting but did not sign the proceeding book because of which the development work could not be done. The refusal to sign the proceeding book on 26.4.1973 was quoted as an instance.
4. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer also filed written st
