JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.10817 of 2010 (Gram Panchayat of Village Kot Dharmu Versus State of Punjab & others) and 10978 of 2010 (Gram Panchayat of Village Akkanwali Versus State of Punjab & others). The facts are being taken from CWP No.10817 of 2010. 2. Large number of writ petitions in routine came up for hearing before this Court, where the elected Sarpanches were not allowed to function and in their place, Administrators were routinely appointed, which, in a way, was direct interference with the democracy at grass root level. This was one such petition, where the petitioner had challenged the appointment of an Administrator despite the fact that there was a working Panchayat, as five Panches out of nine had filed this writ petition, challenging the appointment of Administrator to spend grant for the development of the village. 3. The grievance of the petitioner was that they were not being allowed to work as Sarpanch or Panches. Even the order, suspending the Sarpanch, had been stayed earlier, when this order was challenged by the petitioner-Sarpanch by filing Civil Writ Petition No.1897 of 2010. The appointment of the Administrator thereafter obviously was to deny the elected representative to work and spend the grant given to the village for the purpose of development. The petitioner accordingly has filed the petition, urging that Section 200 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) can only be invoked to appoint Administrator in case of any default but in the present case, there was no default as no grant was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly prayed that he should atleast be allowed to function as a Sarpanch. 4. As per the petitioner, the aim of the official respondents was to start the use of grant directly and not through the petitioner. This Court took serious notice of this position and passed a detailed order while issuing notice of motion. Beside, this Court directed the Director, Panchayat, to file an affidavit, indicating as to in how many Gram Panchayats, the State of Punjab had appointed Administrator and reasons for which such orders were passed. This Court took serious notice of this position and passed a detailed order while issuing notice of motion. Beside, this Court directed the Director, Panchayat, to file an affidavit, indicating as to in how many Gram Panchayats, the State of Punjab had appointed Administrator and reasons for which such orders were passed. The Director was further personally required to satisfy himself if the appointment of Administrator in all such cases was in accordance with law and has been as per the requirement of the Act and is not due to any other reasons, which are not justifiable. This order was passed on 2.6.2010 and reads as under:- “Gram Panchayat, village Kot Dharmu has filed this writ petition to pray for quashing/setting aside the order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-7) vide which respondent No.6 has been appointed as Administrator of the Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has been passed in violation of the rule and primarily is on account of consideration other than the requirement of law. Counsel would refer to Section 200 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which regulates the power to appoint an Administrator. As per this rule, where Panchayat makes any default in the performance of any duty other than judicial function imposed under the Act then the authority concerned may by order in writing fix the period for the performance of the duty and when the said duty is not performed within the period so fixed, he may appoint any other person to perform the duty etc. Counsel would then refer to impugned order, Annexure P-7, to point out that the Administrator was appointed on the asking of some of the Panches, who stated that Sarpanch did not listen to them for carrying out development but there was no period fixed for doing any work which had not been performed by Sarpanch. Some of the Panches had expressed a wish that the grant being given to the village be spent by appointing the Administrator. Five of the Panches out of nine have filed this petition. This is perhaps nor the first or the last instance where the democracy at the grass root level is being interfered with impunity by appointing Administrator in place of elected Sarpanches. The authorities concerned are required to realise that the Panches and Sarpanches are holding the elective office. Five of the Panches out of nine have filed this petition. This is perhaps nor the first or the last instance where the democracy at the grass root level is being interfered with impunity by appointing Administrator in place of elected Sarpanches. The authorities concerned are required to realise that the Panches and Sarpanches are holding the elective office. There may be a valid cause or reason to interfere when the Panchayat may not be functioning in accordance with the law but to appoint Administrator because elected Sarpanch on account of some other consideration would be illegal. Interference in routine by appointing Administrator is something which will be against the spirit of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act and the constitutional mandate to provide democracy at grass root level of village. Notice of motion for 9.7.2010. Operation of the impugned order is stayed. Director, Panchayat would file an affidavit indicating that in how many Gram Panchayats in the State of Punjab, the Administrator has been so appointed and for what reasons such orders have been made. Director would also personally satisfy himself if the appointment of Administrator in all such cases is in accordance with law and has been as per the requirement of the act and is not due to any other reasons which are justifiable.” 5. Subsequently, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, filed an affidavit, which revealed startling facts. In Patiala Division, 75 Gram Panchayats had been made non-functional and in their place Administrators appointed. In Jalandhar Division, 140 Gram Panchayats were placed under suspension and Administrators appointed. 38 Gram Panchayats in Ferozepur Division were functioning under the Administrators. The Court also noticed that there was one common reason stated in all the orders and this was the non-performance of development work by the Gram Panchayats. Noticing that the elected representatives were answerable to their masters i.e. the people, who were the ultimate sovereign, the Court observed the functionaries of the Government holding an office of District Development and Panchayat Officer ought not be in a position to determine the conduct of the Gram Panchayat. This was the core issue raised in the earlier order. The case was accordingly directed to be placed before the same Bench, which had passed the order dated 2.6.2010. 6. This was the core issue raised in the earlier order. The case was accordingly directed to be placed before the same Bench, which had passed the order dated 2.6.2010. 6. During the course of hearing, the Court noticed the disturbing state of affairs in the State in this regard, where as many as 365 Panchayats were working under the Administrators appointed by the District Development Officers. The Director, Panchayat, himself had found that only in 112 cases, there may be some justification for appointing the Administrators to replace Sarpanches and in the rest of the cases, Administrators were wrongly appointed and those orders had since been withdrawn. It, thus, revealed that in over 250 Panchayats, Administrators were appointed without any valid justification. The Court accordingly observed that the situation was alarming and could not be left at that. The Court further observed that it will have to be seen as to how and under what circumstances the Sarpanches are being denied their elective rights to perform their duties. The appointments of Administrators were termed as arbitrary. Accordingly, the Court went on to examine the role of District Development and Panchayat Officers, who had resorted to this illegal action. 7. The Director was then required to file an affidavit to disclose the action that he will propose in those cases where he had found that the Officers had acted in an illegal manner and had exceeded their authority to appointment Administrators. The case was accordingly adjourned. The case thereafter had to be adjourned on various dates, awaiting response from the Director. On March 22, 2011, it was orally submitted before the Court that action has been taken against 15 D.D.P.Os. Seven out of those were warned and 8 were censured. The Director was then required to file an affidavit to state if this punishment was enough to meet the ends of justice. This affidavit was filed but the case had to be adjourned on various dates either on the asking of counsel for the petitioner or the State counsel. Ultimately, the State took an action to rectify the situation and prayed for time to have instructions to show that enough remedial measures can be taken to ensure that in future such situation does not arise. This affidavit was filed on 26.4.2012. 8. Ultimately, the State took an action to rectify the situation and prayed for time to have instructions to show that enough remedial measures can be taken to ensure that in future such situation does not arise. This affidavit was filed on 26.4.2012. 8. On 3.7.2012, another Civil Writ Petition No.12247 of 2012 was filed and was ordered to be tagged with this petition. Despite the remedial measures taken, the State had again appointed Administrator, which was impugned through this writ petition. The operation of this order was stayed. On 3.8.2012, the order appointing the Administrator was withdrawn in this case and this writ petition was accordingly disposed of. 9. Thereafter, the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing in the case, invited the attention of the Court to an affidavit filed, showing that the appointment of Administrator is now regulated as per the guidelines issued by the Government. The Court still found that the appointment of Administrator is not done as is being brought to the notice of this Court through number of writ petitions. The Additional Advocate General was then required to file an affidavit to show as to in how many Panchayats, the Administrators had been appointed and working as such so that some comprehensive order could be passed regulating the position. This affidavit was filed. The Court still did not feel satisfied with the mechanism, which was placed on the record. The observations of the Court as recorded in order dated 10.10.2012 are as under:- “Prima-facie, I am not fully satisfied with the mechanism, which has been worked out and has been placed before me as guidelines. It may not fully remove the menance of undue interference in the rights of elected representative and is affecting the democracy at grass root level. I think something more has to be done. Mr.Sidhu says that he will in consultation with the concerned official consider this issue and come with revised guidelines so that powers under Section 200 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act are not put to any misuse in any manner or that the misuse thereof is avoided.” 10. Another affidavit was filed subsequently, where some modified mechanism has been put in place to regulate the appointment of Administrator strictly in accordance with Section 200 of the Act. The copy of the instructions issued by Government of Punjab has been annexed with the affidavit. Another affidavit was filed subsequently, where some modified mechanism has been put in place to regulate the appointment of Administrator strictly in accordance with Section 200 of the Act. The copy of the instructions issued by Government of Punjab has been annexed with the affidavit. These fresh instructions were issued after reviewing the earlier instructions, so that correct orders can be passed. Taking notice of the importance of the matter, the Director, Rural Development had formed a Departmental Committee to review the matter and this Committee had submitted its recommendations. This report was considered at the highest level and the following guidelines were issued to all the District Development and Panchayat Officers in the State, who are competent authorities in this matter under Section 200 of the Act. These instructions reads as under:- “1. Action under this section may only be initiated as and when any Gram Panchayat is unable to perform its duties (except judicial duties). 2. Before passing order under this section, the Sarpanch and all the Panches of the concerned Panchayat, be given 15 days written notice to perform their duties properly to commence the work. In case he do not commence the work within the prescribed time, then the concerned Sarpanch and Panches be given 7 days notice for personal hearing and why any other person may not be appointed to do the said work. 3. Any person whosoever be appointed to do the work, he may be bound to complete the work within the prescribed limit. 4. In the orders it may be specifically be mentioned in the orders that the expenses on the work will be paid out of the Panchayat funds. 5. Keeping in view the importance of the work, every possible efforts be made to appoint a competent person to perform the duties of the Gram Panchayat. 6. While passing such an order it may be ensured that the order are self speaking. It may be clearly mentioned in the orders that what circumstances cropped up due to which the said person is being appointed to do that work of the Gram Panchayat. 7. While taking action under section of the Act, the decision be taken after thorough consideration so that the representatives of the democratic institutions may not be hurt. 8. It may be clearly mentioned in the orders that what circumstances cropped up due to which the said person is being appointed to do that work of the Gram Panchayat. 7. While taking action under section of the Act, the decision be taken after thorough consideration so that the representatives of the democratic institutions may not be hurt. 8. In case any authority issues order in violation of this section of the Act, strict disciplinary action will be taken against him. 9. As per Section 201 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, “Power to call for proceedings of Panchayat:- The State Government may call for and examine record of proceedings and the record of any executive order of any panchayat or any officers or authority of the Panchayat for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of any executive order passed therein and may confirm, modify or rescind the order.” 10. As per this provision the Government can review legality of such an order and can confirm, modify or rescind it. In case any person has any objection against any order he can bring the same to the notice of the Government.” 11. It is also mentioned in the instructions that in any case where Administrator is appointed in violation of the Departmental guidelines and the rules, action will be initiated against him under Rule 8 for imposing major penalty upon him. Though, the instructions as issued may not fully remove the mischief as there is enough scope still with the authorities to appoint Administrator, but at least some safeguards have been now provided under the threat of action as well. This Court can only hope that the Officers entrusted with the responsibility to pass the order would strictly act in accordance with law and instructions and would not pass such orders on the dictates of some high ups just to remove the Sarpanch or the Panchayat from utilizing the grant. With this hope, the case deserves to be given an unsatisfactory closure, leaving it to the Courts to consider whether the instructions are followed in future or are just a mode to interfere in the elected Panchayats. 12. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.