IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4609-2025(O&M)

Date of decision :04.03.2025 RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS …Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Navneet Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the official respondents to take appropriate action against the private respondents (Member Panchayats) in view of their deliberate non-cooperation and obstructionist conduct, by invoking the powers vested under Section 20(b) and 20(d) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the 1994 Act’).

A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, restraining the official respondents from appointing an Administrator for Village Ava Urf Waryampura.

2. Briefly, petitioner No.1 is the elected Sarpanch of Village Ava Urf Waryampura, whereas, petitioners No.2 to 4 and respondents No.5 to 8 are the elected Member Panchayats of Gram Panchayat, Ava Urf Waryampura.

2.1 According to the petitioners, a meeting was held on 28.11.2024, 06.12.2024, 17.12.2024 and 15.01.2025, wherein a tie of votes occurred amongst the panchayat members. It is stated that in terms of Section 24(3) of the 1994 Act, the Sarpanch is vested with the power of casting vote; however, petitioner No.1 was not permitted to exercise the same by the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer. It is alleged that although the private respondents No.5 to 8 are at fault as they have been unnecessarily and without any sufficient cause, opposing the panchayat resolutions and instead of taking any action against them, the authorities i.e. the District Development and Panchayat Officer and Block Development and Panchayat Officer, have issued a letter dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) recommending appointment of Administrator, to execute the works.

2.2 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court.

3. Heard.

4. In my considered view, the petitioners have an efficacious remedy under Section 201 of the 1994 Act, which reads as under :-

“201. Power to call for proceedings of Panchayat.-The State Government may call for and examine record of proceedings and the record of any executive order of any Panchayat or any officer or authority of the Panchayat for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of any executive order passed therein and may confirm, modify or rescind the order.”

4.1 In view of the afore-said remedy available to the petitioners, the present writ petition is dismissed; however, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail that remedy, in terms of Section 201 of the 1994 Act, if so advised.

5. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.

March 04, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER)

gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No