Disposed

Narinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Mar 2021CWP/3492/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge orally disposed of three connected writ petitions involving representation on record, postponement of hearing, and grievance regarding administrator's execution of panchayat works seeking appropriate authority intervention.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; main petition hearing preponed; grievance redressed by State undertaking to consider representation within two weeks.

Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others — Election Law | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

CM-3785-CWP-2021; CM-3787-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-3492-2021

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM-3785-CWP-2021; in/and CM-3787-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-3492-2021 Date of decision: - 09.03.2021

¶5

Narinder Singh and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present:Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Sunint Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. (keeping in view the advance copy given).

¶13

¶14

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶15

CM-3785-CWP-2021

¶16

Present application has been filed for placing on record the copies of resolutions as Annexure P-5 (Colly.)

¶17

Application is allowed, as prayed for. Copies of resolutions (Annexure P-5 (Colly.)) are taken on record.

¶18

CM-3787-CWP-2021

¶19

Present application has been filed by the applicants-

¶20

petitioners for staying the operation of the impugned order dated

¶21

NARESH KUMAR 2021.03.24 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CM-3785-CWP-2021; CM-3787-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-3492-2021

¶23

-2-

¶24

29.01.2021 (Annexure P-4).

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that he does not press the prayer for stay and prays that hearing of the main writ petition be preponed from 17.03.2021 to today and the main writ petition be heard.

¶26

The prayer of the applicants-petitioners with regard to preponing the hearing of the main writ petition is accepted and the hearing of the main writ petition is preponed from 17.03.2021 to today. CM is disposed of in above terms.

¶27

CWP-3492-2021

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that rather than holding the elections to the wards, which are not being represented by the elected representatives, an administrator has been appointment so as to curtail the jurisdiction of the gram panchayat for the execution of the development works, which are necessary for the development of the area.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the petitioners do not carry the majority as of now, still, the execution of the works cannot be done at the whims and fancies of the administrator without consultation of the elected representatives so as to decide which development works needs to be given priority over others. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even if the administrator has to execute the works, he has to take into consideration the view of the elected representatives of the gram panchayat i.e. the petitioners.

¶30

NARESH KUMAR 2021.03.24 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CM-3785-CWP-2021; CM-3787-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-3492-2021

¶32

-3-

¶33

Notice of motion.

¶34

Keeping in view the advance copy given, Ms. Sunint Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

¶35

Learned State counsel submits that in case the petitioners files any representation raising the said grievance before the competent authority, the same will be considered with open mind and the appropriate speaking order will be passed on the said claim within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation and in case the claim raised by the petitioners in the representation is found worth acceptance, the works sought to be executed by the petitioners, will also be got executed by the administrator.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the statement given by learned State counsel, the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed and they do not want to press this writ petition any further and seeks liberty to approach the respondents qua the filing of the appropriate representation by raising their claim.

¶37

Disposed of, having not been pressed, with liberty as prayed

¶38

for.

¶39

It is made clear that the respondents will be bound by their statement, recorded herein above.

¶40

March 09,	( HARSI 2021	MRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE
naresh.k
	Whether reasoned/speaking?	Yes
	Whether reportable?	No

¶41

NARESH KUMAR 2021.03.24 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Narinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others

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

J.K Praveena Kumari Vs the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council of Haryana and Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Others

Anaj Mandi Association Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Singh Ram and Ors.

Hari Ram & Ors. Vs Rajesh Bhatiya & Anr.

Subhash Chander Malik Vs State of Haryana and Others