Dismissed

Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2011CWP/1551/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order accepting the resignation of a Sarpanch. The petitioner argued the resignation letter was not handwritten. The court held a typed letter submitted by the petitioner constituted valid resignation and contained no patent illegality. The petition was dismissed with liberty to contest the ensuing election.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order accepting resignation is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to participate in the new election.

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 1551 of 2011

¶2

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CWP No. 1551 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision: January 28,2011

Paramjit Kaur

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents

¶10

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. G.S.Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J .(Oral)

¶13

The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose to decide the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner Paramjit Kaur was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Ahmedpur, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa vide resolution dated 1.8.2008 (Annexure P-1). However, she submitted the resignation letter (Annexure P-3) on the ground that due to her domestic engagement, she cannot take full interest in the development work of the panchayat and requested for its acceptance. The Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, while exercisisng the power under Section 17 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') accepted her resignation with effect from 26.8.2010 by means of impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-4). Consequently, the respondents have issued the notice (Annexure P-2) to convene a meeting scheduled to be held on 17.1.2011 to elect the new Sarpanch.

¶14

CWP No. 1551 of 2011

¶15

¶16

The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and notice (Annexure P- 2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition .

¶18

However, the solitary argument of learned counsel that as per Section 17 of the Act, the Sarpanch may resign his office by writing under his/her own hand addressed to the Deputy Director concerned, the resignation letter (Annexure P-3) is not in the hand of the petitioner, and since the same could not be accepted by the Deputy Director , so, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

¶19

As is evident from the record, the resignation (Annexure P-3) is a typed letter, typed at the instance and submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that the resignation is not in her hand. It is clear from the impugned order (Annexure P-4) that the petitioner tendered her resignation (Annexure P-3) of her own from the post of Sarpanch due to her domestic engagement. Having verified, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Budhlada forwarded the same, which was rightly accepted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer. Therefore, no patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order in this relevant connection.

¶20

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 8. Needless to mention, that petitioner would be at liberty to participate

¶22

CWP No. 1551 of 2011 3

¶23

and contest the election of the post of Sarpanch of her Gram Panchayat in pursuance of notice (Annexure P-2).

¶24

January 28,2011 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) nk JUDGE

Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Kaur 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

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Johny and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Narinder Kaur & Anr,. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kartar Singh Vs State of Haryana

Raj Singh Vs Joint Secterary to Govt of Haryana

Sham Sher Singh Vs Joint Secretary to Govt. Haryana and Ors.