Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 81 (PNJ)

Jasmer Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Karnal

2000-01-20

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, K.K.SRIVASTAVA

body2000
ORDER K. K. Srivastava, J. - The petitioners seek quashing of resolution dated 4.8.1999 passed by the Gram Panchayat, copy Annexure P1, and letter Memo No. 2417 dated 29.11.1999, copy Annexure P2, sent by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Indri (Karnal) to Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, dated 27.12.1999, copy Annexure P3, on the ground that the action of the respondent-authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Gram Panchayat, Khukhni, held a meeting on 4.8.1999 under the Chairmanship of the Sarpanch Shri Daya Ram and passed resolution No. 2 which reads as under : "Resolution No. 2 : In the meeting of Gram Panchayat, it was resolved that Sarv/Shri Jasmer Singh son of Shri Inder Singh, Karam Singh son of Hari Singh, Brij Pal son of Shri Chuhar Singh, Dhanpat son of Raghbir Singh, Sunder Singh son of Hans Raj, Raj Kumar son of Hazar Singh of village Khukhni used to give on lease 18 acres of land of shamilat (Mushtarka Malkan) of village Khukhni in a secretive manner and divide the amount amongst themselves, which comes to the rune of Rs. 2,80,000/-. Therefore, Gram Panchayat passes that the copy of the resolution is forwarded for necessary action to worthy Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Indri in order to recover the amount from the above persons." The Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Indri, Karnal, informed the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, vide memo, copy Annexure P2 about the said resolution and sought sanction to get a case registered against the accused persons under Section 409 IPC. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, considered the said matter referred by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer to him and vide order dated 27.12.1999, copy Annexure P3, directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Indri, to get a case registered against the guilty persons and send information to him. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned resolution, memo and order, copies Annexures P1, P2 and P3, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have prematurely rushed to this Court. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned resolution, memo and order, copies Annexures P1, P2 and P3, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have prematurely rushed to this Court. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal-respondent No. 1 has merely directed respondent No. 2-Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Indri, Karnal, to get the FIR registered under Section 409 IPC against the petitioners. Once the FIR is registered against the petitioners, the same is likely to be investigated and in the investigation the investigating agency is required to find out the genuineness of the allegations made against the petitioners and in case after the completion of the investigation a challan is submitted against the petitioners, they (petitioners) would be having some cause of action to challenge the impugned action in submitting a challan. It will not be appropriate for us to go into the questions of fact about any meeting being held by the Gram Panchayat in accordance with the rules and about the same being validly and legally convened and whether the Gram Panchayat could pass a resolution against the petitioners. It will be for an appropriate authority/Court to consider these factual aspects and consider about the legality of convening of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat and passing the resolution which is impugned (copy Annexure P1). So far as Annexure P2 is concerned, it is only the matter referred by respondent No. 2-Block Development & Panchayat Officer to respondent No. 1-Deputy Commissioner for permitting him to get a case registered against the guilty persons under Section 409 IPC and the Deputy Commissioner has directed him to do so. In our considered view, no objection can be raised to the action taken by respondents 1 and 2. Resultantly, we find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.