JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J. 1. As I find from the record, the President of the Gram Panchayat Mr. Balbir Singh was present in this Court at the motion hearing on 5-7-1996 The petition was admitted in his presence and he was represented by Mr. V.K. Verma, the then Assistant Advocate General. As the parties were well represented through their respective counsel, it was ordered that no notice needs to be issued to the Respondents. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the State has refused to appear for the Respondent No. 2 and it is stated by him that his presence cannot be noted as the Panchayat is a statutory body and the State of Himachal Pradesh has nothing to do with it. Be that as it may. 3. I proceed to dispose of the petition finally in the absence of any assistance from the Respondent No 2 or his counsel. 4. This petition has been filed by the Beli Ram-Petitioner laying challenge to the order of the Gram Panchayat Annexure P-l which stands upheld on appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Hamirpur exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner under the Panchayati Raj Act. 5. The machinery of the Gram Panchayat was set in motion by the Petitioner against Smt Shiamo Devi Respondent No. 1 on the allegations that she is throwing the dirty water of her kitchen in the courtyard of the Petitioner through the pipe and inspite of the protest, she has not eared to set it right. 6. In para 2 of the petition it has been stated that the Gram Panchayat Bhoranj was related to Smt. Shiamo Devi Respondent No. 1 and in this situation, the ease was transferred to the Gram Panchayat Badhani where it was heard and decided. 7. The Panchayat visited the site, recorded the statements of the witnesses and ultimately dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner and further imposed a compensation of Rs. 10 under Section 203 of the Panchayati Raj Act. 8. The order as said above, stands affirmed on appeal filed by the Petitioner before the S.D.O. (C), Hamirpur vide order dated 1-8-1995, Annexure P-2. 9. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited my attention to Rule 89(2) of the H.P. Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 wherein it is provided, "that each party shall be allowed to cross- examine Anr. 9. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited my attention to Rule 89(2) of the H.P. Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 wherein it is provided, "that each party shall be allowed to cross- examine Anr. party and its witnesses just after their examination-in- chief". On the basis of this rule it is sought to be argued that the two witnesses, who were examined by the Respondent No. 1, were not permitted to be cross-examined by the Petitioner. 10. In further support of the contention, my attention has been invited to the statements of these witnesses which have been placed at page 17 of the record and from there, it can be safely made out that no opportunity, whatsoever, was provided by the Panchayat to the Petitioner to cross-examine them. The statements placed on the record of this case have been attested to be true copy under the signatures of the Advocate. 11. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel has passed on me the certified copy issued by the Gram Panchayat under its stamp and therein also, no opportunity stands provided to the Petitioner to put any question to these witnesses in cross-examination. 12. Strangely enough, in the record of the Gram Panchayat which has been made available to this Court, I find that at page 18, the statement of Mr. Jaishi Ram is recorded and after having made the statement, he has put his left thumb impression on it. 13. Learned Counsel Mr Sharma is at pains to contend that after the witness has put his thumb impression, the statement continued in order to project that some questions were put during the cross-examination, although it is not specifically recorded as such. Mr. Sharma contends that after the notice was issued by this Court, the President of the Panchayat has made additions and interpretations in the statement of the witness in order to show that the witness was cross-examined by the Petitioner. 14. As I look at the original record on which this statement has been recorded, I find that the contention raised by Mr. Sharma is not without substance. If these questions were permitted to be put during the cross- examination, the thumb impression should have only appeared where the statement ended It is not so. Similarly, the statement of the other witness Mr. Kanshi Ram was recorded and the same is signed by him. Sharma is not without substance. If these questions were permitted to be put during the cross- examination, the thumb impression should have only appeared where the statement ended It is not so. Similarly, the statement of the other witness Mr. Kanshi Ram was recorded and the same is signed by him. On the very next page, the statement again continues and an effort has been made to project that certain questions were put to this witness in cross-examination. 15. On the face of these statements, it appears that there was some space left blank after the examination of the witnesses and 3-4 lines have been added to show that opportunities for cross-examine to these witnesses were provided. When these statements are compared to the one placed on record as well as the certified copy which was made available by the learned Counsel and has been ordered to be placed on record of this case, I find that an effort has been made by the President of the Panchayat to introduce certain material in the original record which was not existing there earlier. 16. In the petition after reproduction of Rule 89(2), it has been specifically averred in para 6 that neither any oath was administered nor any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was provided. 17. Strangely enough, the Respondent No. 1 has filed reply to this petition and in para 6, the contents stand denied. It is further admitted that mere irregularity, if any, on the part of the Respondent No. 2 will not vitiate the findings It would thus follow that the Respondent No. 1 has not denied the fact that opportunity was not provided to the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, rather a cover up stand is projected that it was a mere irregularity. This reply further lends support to the suspicion that the original records interpolated by the President of the Gram Panchayat or someone else who had an access to the original record. 18. It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that before a person is found guilty of some act or omission, he has to be provided full opportunity to project his view point and in the present case, the statute has made it clear in no unequivocal terms that an opportunity shall have to be provided to the party to cross-examine the witnesses which admittedly does not stand complied with. 19. 19. In the given situation, I have no option but to set aside the impugned orders and the case needs to be dealt with again in accordance with the well set principles of law and procedure. Before the matter is entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, it would be necessary to hold a detailed inquiry into the facts and circumstances under which the interpolations came to be made in the original record at a later stage. The case is thus remitted to the District Panchayat Officer, Hamirpur for holding a proper inquiry against the President of the said Gram Panchayat or such other person who, in his opinion, is guilty of such an act. The inquiry be completed within three months from to day and the report be sent to this Court thereafter. The person who is found to be guilty be suitably dealt with in accordance with law. After holding such inquiry, the case be sent to Anr. Gram Panchayat by the District Panchayat Officer for decision afresh on merits in the light of the observations and directions made hereinabove in this judgment. 20. This petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations with costs throughout. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 500. The costs shall be paid by the Respondent No. 2. Parties are directed to appear before the District Panchayat Officer, Hamirpur on 8-5-1997. Copy of this judgment alongwith record be sent to the District Panchayat Officer, Hamirpur forthwith for compliance.