Dilbag Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajan Gupta, J.—The petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order. Annexure P-4 dated 18th June, 2009 passed by respondent No. 2 Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats on the enquiry report dated 17th March, 2009, Annexure P-2 submitted to him by Director Development and Panchayat Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib on the ground that same is non speaking and does not assign any reason for holding that no case was made out against respondent No. 5.

Brief factual background of the case is that election to Gram Panchayat Bilaspur was held in May, 2008. An auction of certain Shamlat land took place on 12th June, 2008 for the year 2008-09. In the said auction son of respondent No. 5 namely Sh. Dilbar Singh participated and his bid was accepted for two plots comprising in Shamlat land in the village. The petitioners complained against respondent No. 5 on the ground that her son could not have participated in the auction as she was the elected Panch of the village. An enquiry was conducted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib, who recommended action against respondent No. 5,-vide report, Annexure P-2. The matter thereafter, came up before Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats who passed the impugned order. Annexure P-4. Operative part whereof reads thus :-

On 18th June, 2009 the counsel for the Panch was heard personally. From the reply filed and from the perusal of the Inquiry Report I have reached on this conclusion that no case is made out against the Panch. So the notice issued to her by this office is ordered to be filed in office.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in view of Rule 6(1)(b) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, relative of a Panch/Sarpanch cannot bid for auction of any Shamlat land and thus, respondent No. 5 had misused her position as a Panch. According to learned counsel, the Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats should have acted on the enquiry report dated 17th March, 2009. Annexure P-2 submitted by District Development and Panchayat Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib and ordered disciplinary action against respondent No. 5.

Learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the order passed by Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayats. He submits that on the relevant date when auction took place the Panchayat was not in existence, as Administrator had been appointed to oversee the affairs of the Panchayat.

Mr. Sandhir, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has reiterated the arguments advanced by learned State counsel. He has further submitted that the possession of the land was never handed over to the son of respondent No. 5 and the auction was in fact rescinded prior to her taking over as Panch.

I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It is evident that in the order passed by Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats no reason has been assigned whatsoever for holding that no case is made out against respondent No. 5. The order is totally non-speaking and therefore, unsustainable. The Director was exercising his powers under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. While taking a decision in view of the powers bestowed by the statute the authority should have passed an order informed by reasons and not bereft thereof. The apex court in case reported as M.J. Sivani and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, held as follows :-

It is also settled law that the order need not contain detailed reasons like a court order. Administrative order itself may contain reasons or the file may disclose reasons to arrive at the decision showing application of mind to the facts in issue. It would be discernible from the reasons stated in the order or the contemporaneous record. Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker. When rules direct to record reasons, it is a sine qua non and condition precedent for valid order. Appropriate brief reasons, though not like a judgment are a necessary concomitant for a valid order in support of the action or decision taken by the authority or its instrumentality or the State. Normally it must be communicated to the affected party so that he may have an opportunity to have it tested in an appropriate forum.

In view of the above, the impugned order is hereby set-aside being totally non speaking in nature. The Director shall, however, be at liberty to pass an order afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. As regards factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this court refrains from expressing any opinion at this stage.

Allowed in aforesaid terms.