Allowed

Baljit Kaur etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2015LPA/1618/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal dismissed a Single Judge's order denying a writ of mandamus to Sarpanch and Panches barred from Gram Panchayat functions. The High Court held elected officials are entitled to perform duties and other members must Cooperate or face action for dereliction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; appals to be permitted to perform duties; ensured other Panches participate under law or face action for dereliction.

Baljit Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

LPA No.1618 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.03.2015

Baljit Kaur & Ors.

... Appellants

vs.

State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PB BAJANTHRI

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate for the appellants

¶13

Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. AG Punjab

¶14

Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶15

¶16

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶17

(1) This Letters Patent Appeal assails the order dated 27.08.2014 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on the premise that a writ in the nature of mandamus as prayed for by them, cannot be issued.

¶18

(2) The first appellant is the duly elected Sarpanch while appellants No.2 to 4 have been elected as Panches of Gram Panchayat of village Kahlowal, Block Chogawan, District Amritsar. The first appellant and two of the Panches belong to reserved category of Scheduled Caste while one of the Panches belongs to General category. Their grievance was against nonentrustment of the charge of the office of Gram Panchayat despite having been duly elected to hold their respective offices. A mandamus was thus sought.

¶19

V.VISHAL 2015.04.23 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

��

¶21

�� ��

¶22

(3) The Letters Patent Bench vide a self-speaking order dated 26.09.2014 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, and other authorities to show cause as to why the elected Sarpanch and Panches of the Gram Panchayat were not being allowed to function in accordance with law?

¶23

(4) It is stated by their learned counsel that pursuant to that order, the appellants have been allowed to take charge of the Gram Panchayat but there are four Panches belonging to General category who are still not cooperating with the Sarpanch and other Panches and as such there is a complete stalemate. He further submits that the Gram Panchayat is unable to take up the development works of the village.

¶24

(5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the appellants, being duly elected Sarpanch/Panches of Gram Panchayat, are entitled to perform their duties in accordance with law, rules and policy framed by the State Government from time to time. The other elected Panches as well are under obligation to help the Gram Panchayat in performance of its Constitutional duties. Any action of theirs which amounts to obstruction in the performance of constitutional or statutory duties by the Gram Panchayat must be taken as dereliction of duty and would warrant appropriate action against them from the Authorities prescribed under the Statute.

¶25

V.VISHAL 2015.04.23 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

��

¶27

�� ��

¶28

(6) We thus allow the appeal; set aside the order of learned Single Judge and dispose of the appellants’ writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar; District Development and Panchayat Officer and other authorities under the Act to permit the appellants to perform their duties in accordance with law and further ensure that the other elected Panches of the Gram Panchayat also participate in the development activities or in day-to-day functioning of the Gram Panchayat in accordance with law/rules, including raising their voice against any illegal action of the majority group, failing which the authorities shall take appropriate action against anyone who, with or without any motive, fail to discharge their duties.

¶29

(7) Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

��

��

�� 

V.VISHAL 2015.04.23 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Baljit Kaur etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Kaur etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

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

Gram Panchayat Kangror Vs the Director Consolidation Pb.Etc.( Cwp 8274/87 Allowed on 17.3.15 SD/-282-504-JJ)

Narinder Paul Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rubina Vs Punjabi University and Ors.