Punjab-Haryana High Court
Partap vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 December, 2022
134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-29296-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.12.2022
Partap .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Parmender Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the discontinuation of his
services as Tubewell Operator by the respondents, pleading that he was appointed
after following due process of law and his services can not thus be summarily
dispensed with.
2. In somewhat similar circumstances, I have had an occasion even
earlier also to adjudicate on the nature of controversy, as is involved herein in a
writ petition bearing CWP No.15970 of 2021 titled Sandeep Kumar vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 20.08.2021. Reference may also be had to a
judgment dated 20.04.2022 rendered in CWP No.4741 of 2022, titled Karan Singh
vs. State of Haryana and others. For ready reference, relevant part of the order
dated 20.04.2022 passed in CWP No.4741 of 2022 is extracted below:-
"On advance service, learned State counsel appears and strenuously
opposes the writ petition and relies on order passed in CWP
No.15970-2021 decided on 20.08.2021, which is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
"Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Resolution dated
17.01.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.5 being
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Yesterday, the matter was
heard and following order was passed:
"On a Court query, how are instant proceedings
ASHISH maintainable against an order passed by Sarpanch
2022.12.20 12:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-29296-2022 (O&M) -2-
of a Gram Panchayat directly before this Court
under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and why
should petitioner be not relegated to seek his
ordinary civil remedy by filing a civil suit or any
other remedy, if so available otherwise, learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks time to address
arguments stating that writ remedy is the only
option. At his request, adjourned to 20.08.2021."
Apropos the aforesaid, learned State counsel has drawn my
attention to Section 47 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act
1994, which reads as below:
47.Power to suspend action of Gram Panchayat.
(1) The District Development and Panchayat Officer or
SubDivisional Officer (Civil), as the case may be, by
written order, suspend the execution of any resolution or
order of the Gram Panchayat or prohibit the doing of any
act which is about to be done or is being done under the
provision of this Act. However, in special circumstances if
in the opinion of the Director, the Gram Panchayat has
committed gross negligence to perform its duties and
functions, the Director may suomotu or on a complaint or
report of the District Development and Panchayat
Officer or Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), as the case may
be, received in this behalf, and after giving a reasonable
opportunity to explain to the Gram Panchayat
concerned, may take necessary action and pass such
orders as he may deem fit.
(2) In case the resolution or order is suspended by the
District Development and Panchayat Officer or Sub-
Divisional Officer (Civil), as the case may be, he shall
forthwith send a copy of the order passed by him in this
behalf with a statement of reasons and with such
explanation as the Gram Panchayat may offer, to the
Director and the Director may thereupon confirm, modify
or rescind the order.
(3) Any Gram Panchayat aggrieved by an order passed
under this section, may within a period of thirty days
from the date of communication of the order, prefer an
appeal to the Government. Control and subordination."
A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that
petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy. In the
premise, this Court, therefore, refrains to directly entertain the
writ petitions under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction qua the
order and/or resolution assailed stated in to be passed by the
ASHISH
Gram panchayat.
2022.12.20 12:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-29296-2022 (O&M) -3-
Dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy, in
accordance with law.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that writ
petition is maintainable against the Gram Panchayat being
State is completely irrelevant as writ petition is not being
dismissed on the ground that Gram Panchayat is not a State but
on the ground of alternative remedy."
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
case file. Disposed of in terms of abovesaid order dated 20.08.2021
passed in CWP No.15970-2021, with liberty to the petitioner to seek
alternative remedy."
3. I see no reason as to why I should take a different view in the present
case, as is being canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and am not
inclined to agree with his arguments.
4. Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
invoke alternative remedy under section 47 of The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act,
1994.
5. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall also
standdisposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
December 19, 2022
ashish
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ASHISH
2022.12.20 12:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
