Pritam Singh, Sarpanch vs The State of Punjab and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—This Court has already held that in order to take action u/s 99 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, a time limit is required to be specified by the competent authority to perform duty by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat and if within that time the action is not taken, the Administrator could be appointed to perform such duty. Petitioner Pritam Singh, Sarpanch of village Tajowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, has challenged order Annexure P/l passed by the D.D.P.O. Hoshiarpur, appointing Shri Ajay Kumar, Social Education and Panchayat Officer as Administrator of the Gram Panchayat aforesaid for utilization of the grants sanctioned to Gram Panchayat Tajowal. It is asserted by the petitioner that no notice was given to the Panchayat and no time was fixed for utilization of the grants, which are required to be done by the Administrator.

On notice of motion, written statement has been tiled on behalf of the respondents, inter alia asserting that out of seven members of the Gram Panchayat, four members had approached the Panchayat and Development Officer for appointment of the Administrator as the Gram Panchayat could not function properly and thus no notice was required to be given.

After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order Annexure P/l cannot be sustained in law. A bare perusal of Section 99 of the Act would indicate that before any action could be taken for appointment of the Administrator, a time was required to be fixed within which certain duties were to be performed. In the present case, there is no such allegation that any time was fixed for utilization of the grants, which has been mentioned in the impugned order. That being the position, straightaway order appointing the Administrator for the Gram Panchayat could not be passed. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.