Remanded

Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2012CWP/12713/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge decision holding that suspension of an elected Sarpanch was unjustified as eviction proceedings were erroneously directed against wrong persons. Court directed fresh consideration and one-month moratorium on the suspension.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to reconsider suspension order afresh; if continued, suspension shall not be put into effect for one month.

Ravinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 12713 of 2011 Date of decision : 18.07.2012

Ravinder Kaur

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Yatinder Sharma DAG, Punjab for the State.

¶14

¶15

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶16

The petitioner was placed under suspension on 08.03.2011 by Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Mohali. The allegation made against the petitioner was that she had initiated eviction proceedings against Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh and Surta Singh on the ground that they are in unauthorised possession of panchayat land whereas actual fact is that this panchayat land was not in unauthorised possession of Harbans Singh and others. The facts on record would show that the eviction order has already been passed against Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh and Surta Singh. This Court, accordingly, noticed that this suspension of the petitioner, as ordered by the Director was not justified.

¶17

While issuing notice of motion, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to file personal affidavit stating as to under what

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 12713 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

provision of law on administrative side he could upset the finding recorded by the Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Respondent was asked to further clarify the remaining aspects in regard to placing the petitioner under suspension.

¶21

Respondent No. 2 has now filed his personal affidavit stating that there is no intention on his part to interfere with the order passed under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 has disclosed the reasons in detail as to why order was passed. It is alleged that the petitioner had sought eviction of person, who was not in unauthorised occupation of panchayat land.

¶22

Be that as it may, now the petitioner has conceded this fact of wrong move and has filed application against the persons, who are stated to be actually in unauthorised possession of this land. Mere fact that the petitioner had filed petition against some wrong persons apparently may not appear justified for placing elected representative under suspension. In any case, it ought to have been first inquired if this action was with any motive or purpose, to take action against the petitioner if it was otherwise permissible on this ground. Placing the petitioner, who is elected representative under suspension merely on this ground may not sound justified. The petitioner has already moved proper application seeking eviction of actual unauthorised occupants. The eviction proceedings has been stayed by this Court, the petitioner has continued to act as Sarpanch.

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No. 12713 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

The present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the issue in the light of factual position as it exists today and to decide afresh if there is any cause or reason to place the petitioner under suspension on this ground or not. If the petitioner is still placed under suspension, the same shall be done by giving detailed reason and order shall not be put in effect for one month to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal.

¶26

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶27

July 18, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Sarwan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Avtar Chamak Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Iqbal Singh and Anr. Vs Superitending Canal Officer and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daya Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab through Secy. and Ors.

Kuljit Singh @ Daljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.