IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.15407 of 2008
Date of Decision: February 03, 2009
Makhan Singh & Others
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for respondent
No.1.
None for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Mr. N.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
Challenge in this civil writ petition
filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India is to Order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-11)
passed by the Secretary -cum- Director, Rural
Development & Panchayats, Punjab. Order Annexure
P-11 is an order whereby two Gram Sabhas namely
Nathuwala Garbi and Nathuwala Nawan were bifurcated.
Elections were held for the two
constituted gram panchayats. The gram panchayats are
CWP No.15407 of 2008 [2]
still working as on date and resolutions are being
passed, and affairs of gram sabha managed. It seems
that in the meantime, respondent No.5, Gurjant
Singh, wanted both the gram sabhas to be amalgamated
again. Said Gurjant Singh filed Civil Writ Petition
No.10610 of 2008. This Court, vide Order dated
10.6.2008 directed the respondents to take a
decision on the representation of Gurjant Singh.
Considering the representation, the impugned order
has been passed whereby it has been directed that
fresh corrigendum be issued and the two gram sabhas
be amalgamated.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
states that Gurjant Singh (respondent No.5) and the
popular vote in the two gram sabhas are of the
opinion that present arrangement of having two gram
panchayats is working effectively and the same be
allowed to continue.
Learned counsel for the respondent-
State says that with the new developments, the
respondent-State shall consider the changed
circumstances and take a decision accordingly.
The petition is disposed of to enable
the petitioners and Gurjant Singh (respondent No.5)
to approach respondent No.1 with the changed
circumstances.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
states that resolutions have been passed by the gram
panchayats.
CWP No.15407 of 2008 [3]
The petitioners would have the liberty
to place before respondent No.1 all the relevant
documents i.e. resolutions passed by the gram
panchayat and gram sabhas. The representation be
filed within 45 days from today, whereupon decision
would be taken by respondent No.1.
Till the date of decision, status-quo
would be maintained and the two gram panchayats
would be allowed to continue.
(AJAI LAMBA)
February 03, 2009 JUDGE
avin