Disposed

Gram Panchayat, Bhanguri and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2008CWP/4198/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the constitution of Forest Protection Committees alleging violation of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act and non-association of Sarpanches. The Court observed the petitioner failed to substantiate claims, noted Committees are non-statutory, and granted liberty to represent grievances to authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to make representations to authorities regarding alleged non-association of Sarpanches and misutilization of funds.

Gram Panchayat, Bhanguri and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *****

¶2

CWP No. 4198 of 2004. Date of decision: September 10, 2008. ***

¶3

GRAM PANCHAYAT BHANGURI AND OTHERS

¶4

Petitioners.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others.

¶7

Respondents.

¶8

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant.

¶10

¶11

Present: Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Addl: AG, with Mrs. Sonu Chahal, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

Shri Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶13

¶14

T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral)

¶15

This petition purports to have been filed in Public Interest. It prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the constitution of what is described as Forest Protection Committees, on the ground that the said committees have been constituted in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the regulations framed thereunder.

¶16

Appearing for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, Bhanguri, Mr. Hemant Saini submitted that the constitution of the Forest Protection Committees and Management Committees were contrary to the notification dated November 18, 2003 issued by the Government of Punjab. He drew our attention to the contents of the said notification, para 1.3.2(i) whereof envisages nomination of Sarpanch of the concerned gram Panchayats as an Ex-officio member of the Management Committees. He contended that the constitution of the Management Committee relevant to

¶17

-2- CWP No. 4198 of 2004.

¶18

the petitioner-panchayat was in violation of the provisions of the said notification, The net result was that the elected Sarpanches of the Panchayats were never associated with the management of the affairs of the Forest Protection Committees set up for Forest Protection and Preservation Programs. He further argued that a large amount of monetary assistance which was meant to be spent on Forest Protection and Preservation Programs was disbursed to these committees during the last Lok Sabha Elections in the year 2004, which amounts were according to Mr. Saini, spent to promote political agendas.

¶19

On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, on the other hand submitted that the Forest Protection Committees are constituted as volunteer groups with a view to assisting the village community for preservation and protection of Forest. Such committees are constituted only in Forest Fringe Villages and are meant to lend assistance to the Forest Protection and Preservation work by the communities living in such areas. He further argued that the allegations regarding the Sarpanches of the village Panchayats concerned not being associated with the Management Committees was without any basis and that there was nothing on the record to substantiate that any such Management Committee had either mis-directed or mis-utilized the funds with or without the assistance of the Sarpanch concerned. He argued that in case the petitioner had any grievance regarding the Sarpanch of a particular village not being associated with the Management Committee, a representation could be made to the competent authority, who would examine the same and ensure that the structural composition of the Committee remains strictly in accordance with the notification dated November 18, 2003 issued by the Government of Punjab, on the subject.

¶20

We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. We must at the out-set mention that the submissions

¶21

-3- CWP No. 4198 of 2004.

¶22

made at the Bar by Mr. Saini are at variance with the prayers made in the writ petition. As noticed earlier, the prayer in the writ petition is for quashing of the notification dated November 18, 2003 by which Forest Protection Committees and Management Committees have been directed to be established with the laudable object of protecting and preserving the Forests in the Villages. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notification and the orders constituting such committees. The argument advance by Mr. Saini before us on the other hand was that the committees did not associate the Sarpanches of the Panchayats concerned, as was required in terms of para 2.3.2(i) of the notification. There is, thus, a palpable digression from the prayer made in the writ petition. It is one thing to say that the constitution of the Forest Protection Committees and the Management Committees in terms of the notification dated November 18, 2003 are illegal and deserve to be quashed, but entirely an different thing to argue that the said committees are functioning without associating the Sarpanches of the Panchayats concerned. If notification dated November 18, 2003 is illegal there is no question of the petitioner seeking protection of any provisions contained therein. Be that as it may, a challenge to the notification and the constitution of the committees under the same was not pursued by Mr. Saini. All that we therefore need to mention is that such committees are not statutory in character and are intended to involve village community in the protection of Forests. These committees are constituted and established under a Central sponsored scheme as is evident from the circular dated December 24, 2002 and a Demi Official Letter issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi dated March 03, 2003 requesting the concerned State Governments to implement the said scheme. There is, in our opinion, no conflict between the constitution of the committees in terms of the policy on the one hand and the provisions by the Panchayati Raj Act, on the

¶23

-4- CWP No. 4198 of 2004.

¶24

other. We need not dilate on this part of the controversy any further since Mr. Saini did not argue the matter on this aspect nor was it the case of the petitioner that the committees were in any way trespassing into the territory reserved for the Panchayats.

¶25

That bring us to the question whether there is any room for us to issue any direction in Public Interest so far as the non-association of the Sarpanches of the Village Panchayat is concerned. We asked Mr. Saini whether he could show us any notification constituting a Management Committee or a Forest Protection Committee which has excluded the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned. He was however unable to draw our attention to any such circular or notification. We, therefore, have no option but to hold that the allegations regarding the exclusion of the Sarpanches of the Panchayats concerned, were not substantiated before us. All the same, we see no reason why the petitioner should not be given liberty to take up the matter at an appropriate level with the government or with the functionaries of the government to examine whether there is any violation of the notification dated November 18, 2003 which nominates Sarpanch of the Village of the Panchayat concerned, as Ex-officio members in the Management Committee. Besides the petitioner will be at liberty to point out to the authorities concerned the alleged mis-direction or mis-utilization of the funds meant for various Programs. In case the petitioner does make any such representation, the authorities concerned are expected to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders.

¶26

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶27

(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶29

September 10, 2008 Malik

Gram Panchayat, Bhanguri and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat, Bhanguri and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

All India Forum for National and Ors. Vs U.T. Chd. and Ors.

Arminder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balbir Isngh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishan Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Babu Ram Vs Pb. St. etc.

Prem Singh Vs the State of Punjab