This judgment disposes of a writ petition challenging the bifurcation of a Gram Panchayat. The court treated the petition as a representation-cum-objection and directed the respondent to dispose of it within two months.
Directed respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation-cum-objection and dispose of it within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.8201 of 2013 Date of Decision : April 22, 2013
Malkeet Singh and others
.....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Munisha Gandhi, Additional AG, Punjab.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 4 only at
this stage.
Ms.Munisha Gandhi, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf.
Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for nonprosecution.
In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no need to issue notice to respondent Nos.5 & 6 as no order prejudicial to their interest is being passed, nor any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 to 4 is needed at this stage
CWP No.8201 of 2013
[2]
The petitioners are residents of village Mahatam Nagar, Tehsil and District Fazilka. Their grievance is against the notification dated 17.12.2012 (Annexures P-1) issued by the Government of Punjab whereby Gram Panchayat of village Mahatam Nagar has been bifurcated into two Gram Panchayats and Dona Nanka has been formed a new Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have already submitted their objections (Annexure P-6) against the formation of new gram panchayat but no decision appears to have been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka, on their objections so far.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since procedural violation of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is being alleged by the petitioners, we are of the view that even if the merger or bifurcation of Gram Panchayat(s) is essentially a policy matter which calls for no interference by us at this stage, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to treat this writ petition as a representation-cum-objection on behalf of the petitioners against the impugned notification and dispose of it on objective consideration as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
April 22, 2013 Mohinder
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should accept the case as a representation-cum-objection regarding the bifurcation of a Gram Panchayat.
Whether the Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the objection within two months.
Whether a procedural violation of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 occurred.
Malkeet Singh and others
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
R.P.Nagrath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
