Allowed

Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Oct 2006CWP/15926/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders removing her Sarpancy due to failure to dig tubewells. Court noted fiscal lapses were the Panchayat's decision, not petitioner's fault, and accordingly quashed the impugned orders while directing action against defaulters.

What did the court decide?

Orders removing the petitioner were quashed; petitioner directed to initiate action against defaulters.

Harjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15926 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 28, 2006

Parties Name

Harjit Kaur

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. P.S.Chhina, Addl. A.G., Punjab;

¶12

JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)

¶13

Order.

¶14

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated April 28, 2006, (Annexure P-2), vide which petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch. Further challenge is to the order dated September 6, 2006 (Annexure P-1), vide which appeal, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

¶15

It was allegation against the petitioner that despite having passed the resolution, he has failed to dig up two tubewells in the land, which was given on lease to four residents of the village. It is apparent from the record that decision to install tubewell, to irrigate the barren land, was taken up by the Gram Panchayat, in a meeting, after passing a resolution. Counsel for the petitioner states that as two of the lessees failed to deposit the requisite money, amount recovered from other two lessees

¶16

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15926 OF 2006

¶17

was not sufficient to dig up even one tubewell. Under these circumstances, Panchayat was not in a position to install the tubewells, as promised. Regarding two lessees, who have failed to deposit the amount by passing a resolution, their security amount was forfeited and letter was written to the higher authorities to recover the amount from them.

¶18

By stating above mentioned facts, counsel states that no fault lies with the petitioner. It was decision of the Gram Panchayat and not of the petitioner to install the tubewell. As sufficient money was not available, tubewells were not installed. For such a lapse, the petitioner cannot be blamed. We feel that the argument raised is perfectly justified. This fact has totally been ignored by the authorities below. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the orders under challenge deserve to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the orders under challenge

¶19

are quashed. The petitioner – Sarpanch is directed to initiate action against the defaulters, as per law.

¶20

( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Pritam Pal ) October 28, 2006. Judge DKC

Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal and Ors. Vs Haryana Financial Corp.

Tejinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Bhagowal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Standard Electricals Ltd. Vs Commissioner Jalandhar Divi. & Ors.

Billa Coop. Transport Society Ltd. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

M/S Bakshi Dairy Farm and Ors. Vs D.R.T. Chd. and Anr.