Sunil Kumar & ORS. v. State Of Haryana & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16825 of 2015 Date of Decision: August 14, 2015 Sunil Kumar and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

Present: Mr.Hawa Singh Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy AG, Haryana.

-.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 5 only at this stage.

On our asking, Ms.Kirti Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice.

Let five copies of the writ petition be supplied to the State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to seek any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 to 5 or to serve respondent No.6 at this stage as no order prejudicial to its interest is being passed. The petitioners are residents of village Nahri, Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat. They are aggrieved by the notification

CWP No.16825 of 2015 [2] dated 12.09.2014 issued by the State Government whereby a new Gram Panchayat known as 'Nahri Pana Sikhan' has been established out of the original sabha area of Gram Panchayat Nahri. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that while issuing the impugned notification the mandatory procedure as laid down under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has not been followed. It is their contention that once a new Gram Panchayat is sought to be constituted pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, such a resolution ought to have been passed in accordance with the spirit of Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules.

It is also the case of petitioners that the requisite information whether the procedure or process was followed or not for the constitution of a new Gram Panchayat, has not been disclosed to them though efforts have been made to get such information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 05.05.2015 (P-10). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the factual issues raised by the petitioners with reference to the alleged non-observance of the procedure contemplated under the Act, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1, namely, State of Haryana to treat this petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioners and take an appropriate decision. It shall be appreciated if one of the petitioner is heard in representative capacity before taking any decision.

CWP No.16825 of 2015 [3] under Section 11 of the Act. It shall be appreciated if the decision is taken within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE August 14, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE