Baldev Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Nov 2008
- Bench
- SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, JASWANT SINGH
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 s. 20
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to take action against respondents No.5 to 7, who are deliberately not attending the meeting of Gram Panchayat of Village Kachava with an object to obstruct the functioning of the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that those persons are not intentionally attending the meeting because one of them was not elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Undisputedly, the petitioners have not made any representation to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, who is the competent person to take action under Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed representation to the Director, Rural C.W.P. No. 18919 of 2008 -2- Development and Panchayats, Punjab for taking action against those persons under Section 20 of the Act. If any such representation is filed by the petitioners within three weeks, respondent No.2 is directed to look into the matter in accordance with law. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 05, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — s. 20.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 05 Nov 2008. The bench was SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, JASWANT SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.