Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA, JJ.
Prem Singh Bhati – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 28647 of 2018
Decided On : 05-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to contest wardbandi order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. responses and events surrounding wardbandi. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against non-speaking order. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. reference to previous judgment's directives. (Para 10) |
| 5. court's observance of compliance with prior orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. conclusion stating no merits in the case. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J.
In the instant petition, petitioner is seeking setting aside of order dated 20.08.2018 (P-10) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby representation dated 13.02.2018 (P-3), 07.03.2018 (P-4), 15.05.2018 (P-6)and 15.05.2018 (P-7) made by the petitioner and other members of the Gram Sabha regarding incorrect wardbandi have been rejected. Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of direction to respondent-authorities to do wardbandi of all the nine wards of Gram Panchayat, Amarpura, Block Abohar, District Fazilka in accordance with Section 10 , 10 (a) of the PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT , 1994 (for short 'Act 1994')
2. It is not in dispute that earlier petitioner filed CWP No. 16358- 2018 seeking direction to respondent-authorities to do wardbandi of all the nine wards of Gram Panchayat, Amarpura, Block Abohar, District Fazilka in accordance with Act 1994. The petition was disposed of on 09.07.2018 with direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representations by passing speaking order as expeditiously as possible.
3. In compliance of this order, petitioner gave a representation along with copy of order dated 9.07.2018. However, the petitioner and other members were asked to leave by saying that they would be informed as and when their presence would be required. Thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 20.08.2018 (P-10) was passed by respondent No. 3.
4. On notice of the petition, a reply dated 04.12.2018 was filed by Mr. Virender Singh, BDPO Abohar on behalf of the respondents. In para No. 3 of the reply, the table was given with respect to list of dates and events related to the aforesaid wardbandi. The table reads as under:-
| Date | Particulars | Remarks |
| 2.12.2017 to 23.02.2018 | Public notice of the wardbandi to be carried on in Abohar Block. | Proper information given to public:- 1.Village Chowkidar made announcements. 2. Announcements made in the village temple speakers 3. Physical notice was pasted in all public places of the village like panchayat ghar, school etc. |
| 21.03.2018 to 31.03.2018 | Objections were invited from the General Public | Proper notice and time given to submit objections |
|
| Total 13 objections received related to Aadhar Block | Proper record prepared of all objections |
| 15.05.2018 | Public hearing for clarification and resolution of the objections | Present petition did not cooperate and insisted on one thing i.e doing the whole process again |
|
| Objection of village Amarpura received from Rajesh, Rajinder Singh, Binder Singh, Meenu Ram | After careful scrutiny of the objections, the same were filed by the authority in accordance with law. |
5. It has further been mentioned in the reply that the petitioner was duly informed by the concerned authorities about the date of hearing of all objections related to the process of wardbandi of village Amarpura, Block- Abohar, District Fazilka. After doing all the formalities, the process began on 15.05.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the BDPO Ahohar on the said date but refused to explain the objections given in the representation and on the other hand, misbehaved with the officials present there and said that I dont want to get the objections cleared from you and that I will see you in the Court itself. The petitioner remained present but did not take part in the proceedings therein except for appending their signatures.
6. Further the voter list for the Lok Sabha Elections was prepared on the basis of division of the aforesaid
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining uniformity of population in Panchayat Samiti wards and the compactness of wards, and the adherence to due process of ....
The lottery for reservation was conducted in conformity with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1994 and subsequent notifications did not change the constituency of the reserved categories, thus no intervention ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if objections were invited, raised, and rejected by the relevant authority, the court cannot entertain the challenge to the delimitation of Pa....
The allotment of seats in Village Panchayat must be based on the latest census data, ensuring compliance with legal obligations for reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Courts cannot entertain challenges to the formation of wards and reservation of seats for village Panchayats due to the provisions of Article 243-O and the decision in Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs. Coll....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions, emphasizing the prevention of arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
