Allowed

Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2009CWP/11544/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the appointment of an administrator over an elected Sarpanch by the BDPO without affording an opportunity of hearing. The court set aside the order allowing a fresh proceeding after hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.7.2009 is set aside; respondent is at liberty to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing including personal hearing to the petitioner.

Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 11544 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.8.2009.

¶3

Devinder Singh --Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others --Respondents

¶6

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶7

Present:Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

¶9

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶10

Notice of motion.

¶11

Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶12

The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhullar, Block Chugawan, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. He is aggrieved of the order dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the BDPO, Amritsar, whereby one Rajinder Parshad, VDO has been appointed as Administrator for spending an amount of Rs. 1 lac for cremation ground, Rs. 2 lacs for streets and drains and Rs. 3 lacs for getting two bores made in the Shamlat land. The Administrator has been appointed primarily on the ground that the Gram Panchayat has failed to spend the amount. As per the report of the the BDPO the Sarpanch is not undertaking the developmental works. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without even affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or Panchayat, which is a duly elected body and has right to carry out the developmental works in accordance with Section 30 (ii) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

¶13

CWP. No. 11544 of 2009 -2-

¶14

From the impugned order it appears that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and the appointment of Administrator admittedly takes away the right of the elected body to carry out its legitimate functions.

¶15

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2009 is hereby set aside. However, respondent no.4 is at liberty to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/Panchayat. The petitioner shall have the right of personal hearing as well.

¶16

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶17

4.8.2009 lucky

Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devinder Singh 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

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kiran Devi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sangaat Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalvinder Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.