Tirath Ram & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Shri Hardip Singh son of Inder Singh resident of village Fathegarh Sukerchak stated that I settled amount against the 'pipal' tree standing in cremation ground with Dalwinder Singh panch and when I passed the amount then Kewal Singh panch, CWP No. 12146 of 2010 -3- ***** Gurnam Singh panch were also present and Sarpanch Channan Singh was standing at some distance. Then they asked him to come closer, and he replied to continue the proceedings. In this when I tried to cut the tree on the next day, I was stopped. 5) Shri Kewal Singh panch stated that out of the 'pipal' trees in the cremation ground, one of tree is very old and its branches are touching the electricity wires and are bent towards the road. The same were hindrance in the traffic, there was also apprehension of loss on their falling upon the electricity wires.The same have been cut with the people consent. The small 'pipal' tree is also bent towards road, there was necessity to cut the same, this has been done with the consent of villagers. Photo copy of the same is annexed. 6&7) Shri Gurnam Singh panch and Dalwinder Singh panch endorsed the statement of Kewal Singh panch above. 8) Shri Palwinder Singh s/o Bakshish Singh stated that complainant has offered Rs. One lakh stating that if your brother settles this then we would be in majority and we would elect Sarpanch. The villagers demanded that the cremation area is very low lying and sometime the cremation has to be performed in water. This complaint is being made due to party faction and whatever work is being done is done in public interest. 9) Shri Channan Singh Sarpanch stated CWP No. 12146 of 2010 -4- ***** that the condition of cremation ground near the bus stand is very poor. The water logs even for moderate rain and many time the rites are performed in rain. The villagers demanded that earth filling be carried out on the road side, in cremation ground. The branches of 'pipal' thre on the road side were creating hindrance in earth fill, therefore the same have been cut with people consent. At that time, telephone of Avtar Singh panch was received, to stop the work and the same was stopped. Avtar Singh panch phoned not to cut any further branch. Thereafter the villagers did not take any proceedings. This hindrance is due to party faction and the above work is carried out for people benefit. During the inquiry, the statement of both sides were recorded. From the statements it is clear that; Kewal Singh panch, Gurnam Singh panch, Dalwinder Singh panch and Chahan Singh Sarpanch are guilty. Because they have cut three large branches of 'pipal' tree and attempt to cut another 'pipal' tree from the root has been made, which is without resolution. This is illegal, legal action is recommenced against them. Report is presented.” The reading of the inquiry report shows, that the inquiry officer has not recorded any finding, nor has given any reason for coming to the conclusion, that the respondents were guilty. The specific allegation of mala fide against complainant by the witnesses has not been discussed. CWP No. 12146 of 2010 -5- ***** It was specifically stated by the Contractor, that respondent, was not allowed to cut the trees, and that he was stopped from cutting the trees. On the face of it the enquiry is cryptic. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, without going into the allegation, and by ignoring that the enquiry report was non-speaking made recommendations to the Director, Department of Rulral Development and Panchayat, Punjab to take action against the respondents. It seems that the Director chose not to take note of this enquiry which seems to be out of party faction. The case of the petitioner is, that the representations were made by the petitioners to the Director, Department of Rulral Development and Panchayat, Punjab, but he has taken no action under the Panchayati Raj Act against the respondents. The writ of mandamus is prayed for, for directing the respondents for taking action on the basis of the inquiry report against the respondents, and remove them from the post of elected Panches. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted. It is within the jurisdiction of the Director, Department of Rulral Development and Panchayat, Punjab to accept or not accept the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. The petitioners have no locus standi to seek a writ of mandamus to take action on the inquiry report, as it is the discretion of the Director to act in accordance with law on the report, in view of the Hon'ble Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saktu CWP No. 12146 of 2010 -6- ***** Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1988 PLJ 379, the petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ. No merit. Dismissed.

29.07.2010 'sp' (VINOD K. SHARMA) JUDGE