JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J. 

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned District Development and Panchayat Officer, Barnala, whereby respondent No.5 (Gurdeep Singh) was appointed as Administrator for the Gram Panchayat, Mehal Kalan, Barnala, Punjab.

2. Pursuant to the advance copy of petition, having been supplied to learned State counsel, Mr. Harpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appears and raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He contended that in view of Section 201 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy available to them, which they have failed to avail before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Heard.

4. The scope and ambit of Section 201 of the Act came up for consideration of this Court in “Binder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others” reported as 2016(1) RCR(Civil) 634, the relevant extract of which reads as under :-

“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record, Section 201 of the Act gives power to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab to entertain revision petition against the order of the DD&PO passed under Section 200(1) of the Act.

6. Thus, the present petition is not maintainable and hence the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the impugned order before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab by way of a revision petition under Section 201 of the Act. It is further directed that in case such a revision is filed within seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab shall decide the same within one month thereafter. The petitioner may take other pleas also in the said petition, which shall be decided by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab.”

4.1 A similar view, as taken in Binder Kaur’s case (supra) has also been taken in cases of Surjit Kaur vs State of Punjab, 2017(1) RCR(Civil) 300; Dona Singh vs The State of Punjab and others, 2020(4) Law Herald 2821 and Gurbhej Singh @ Gurjant Singh vs State of Punjab and others, 2022(3) PLR 348.

5. In the instant case, petitioners have given the following declaration in paragraph No.12 of the writ petition:-

12. That the petitioner has been left with no other alternative remedy of appeal or revision except to file the present writ petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. In my considered view, the petitioners have incorrectly stated in the writ petition that no alternative remedy is available. In fact, a statutory remedy under Section 201 of the Act is clearly available, which admittedly has not been availed by the petitioners.

7. In the aforementioned circumstances, I find no compelling reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned District Development and Panchayat Officer, Barnala; accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy(ies) under Section 201 of the 1994 Act (if so advised).

8. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.