LPA-3086-2024 (O 024 (O&M) 106 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB JAB AND v. LPA-3086-2024
Case Details
LPA-3086-2024 (O 024 (O&M) 106 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CHANDIGARH Dharam Pal State of Haryan aryana and others versus LPA-3086-2024 (O&M) M) 2025 Decided on: February 24, 2025 De llant ….Appellant s ….Respondents
Legal Reasoning
produce any document from which it could atleast prima facie be established that the alleged loss had actually been caused to the Gram Panchayat concerned at the hands of respondent No.8. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which may warrant any interference by this Court. 10. 11. 12. No other point has been urged. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
Arguments
CORAM: HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUK HO SUDHIR SINGH SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Mr Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advoc Advocate for the appellant. SUDHIR SING SINGH, J. (ORAL) CM-7614-LPA LPA-2024 ***** For the reasons stated in applicati For ay of plication, same is allowed. Delay of 01 day in filing filing the appeal is condoned. Main case (O& e (O&M) The present intra Court appeal is d Th ated al is directed against the order dated 24.10.2024 pas passed by learned Single Judge, in reby dge, in CWP-28918-2024, whereby the said writ pet rit petition filed by the appellant, has t, has been dismissed. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, th Be writ , the appellant had sought a writ of Mandamus d mus directing the official respondents n on ndents to take appropriate action on the complaints laints dated 29.08.2024 (Annexures him es P-1 to P5) submitted by him against respond spondent No.8 in respect of the misap ment misappropriation and embezzlement of panchayat fu funds, while the said respondent w dent was a Sarpanch. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.03.03 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 Page 1 of 4 LPA-3086-2024 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition as also the complaints filed by the appellant were devoid of material particulars and that only vague and general allegations had been made therein, is factually incorrect as a perusal of the complaints (Annexures P-1 to P-5) made by the appellant, would clearly show that specific allegations regarding embezzlement of panchayati funds had been levelled in the said complaints. It is also argued that the learned Single Judge, has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 53 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’), whereby the official respondents are mandated to act upon any complaint regarding the embezzlement or misappropriation of panchayati funds. It is further argued that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey versus State of W.B., 2004 (3) SCC 349 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said judgment pertains to the matters of public interest litigation(s). Thus, a prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the file of the case, including the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Single Judge, in para-2 of its order, had quoted in extenso the instances of embezzlement mentioned by the appellant against respondents No.5, 6 and 8. On the basis thereof, it was found that the said allegations and the contents of the complaints/representations (Annexures P-1 to P-5) were lacking in MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.03.03 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment Page 2 of 4 LPA-3086-2024 (O&M) material particulars and only vague and general averments/ allegations had been made. 6. Adverting to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we may notice that Section 53 of the Act of 1994 stipulates the liability of a Sarpanch or Panch. Sub section(1) of the Section 53 thereof stipulates that every Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram Panchayat shall be liable for the loss, waste or mis-application of Gram funds or property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, if such loss, waste or mis-application is the result of neglect or mis-conduct of Sarpanch or Panch. Sub Section(s) stipulates that Sub-Divisional Officer concerned may on the application of the Gram Panchayat or otherwise in respect of loss, waste or misapplication of the Gram funds or property of that Gram Panchayat assess by order in writing the amount due from him on account of such loss, waste or mis-application of such Gram Funds or property. 7. In the instant case, the applicability of Section 53(1) of the Act of 1994 would come into play only if the appellant satisfies the requirement for attraction of the said provisions. We find that the allegations levelled in the complaints/ representations (Annexures P-1 to P-5) and ones contained in the writ petition, as extracted by the learned Single Judge, would make out that only general and vague allegations without any foundational basis have been levelled by the appellant. Even otherwise, provisions of Section 53(2) of the Act of 1994 are directory in nature, as it has been stipulated that the Sub- Divisional Officer concerned “may” on the application of the Gram Panchayat or otherwise in respect of loss, waste or misapplication of the Gram funds or property of that Gram Panchayat assess by order in writing the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.03.03 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment Page 3 of 4 LPA-3086-2024 (O&M) amount due from him on account of such loss, waste or mis-application of such Gram Funds or property. Thus, the concerned authorities have a directory power in terms of the aforesaid provisions to go into the question of loss, waste or mis-application of the Gram Panchayat funds or property. 8. It may also be noticed that the appellant has not been able to
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE February 24, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.03.03 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment Page 4 of 4