Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUNSHI RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Munshi Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-6001-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 3139 (15 May 2006)

C.W.P.No.6001 of 2004 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P.No.6001 OF 2004

DATE OF DECISION : 8.5.2006

Munshi Ram

..... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

.......

Present : Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S.Pattar, Sr.DAG, Haryana

for the State.

Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate

for respondent No. 4.

...

MAHESH GROVER, J.

The petitioner has impugned the order of the Commissioner dated 28.1.2004 by which the appeal against the appointment of Surja Ram respondent No.4 as Chaukidar of village Kalirono, District Kurukshetra has been dismissed.

The petitioner submitted that Naib Tehsildar had recommended the name of one Jasmer Singh and the file was sent to the Sub divisional Magistrate, Thanesar who after hearing the parties appointed the petitioner as Chaukidar vide his order dated 21.9.2001.

Jasmer Singh and respondent No.4, who were aggrieved by the order C.W.P.No.6001 of 2004 2

of the Sub divisional Magistrate filed appeals before the Colle tor, Kurukshetra, who proceeded to decide them vide his order dated 30.1.2002. Both the appeals were accepted and the matter was reman ed back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate with a direction that the r solution of the Gram Panchayat dated 25.10.2001 be taken into consi eration before passing any order.

The Sub divisional Magistrate, Thanesar thereafter passed an order dated 25.3.2002 by which he appointed Surja Ram, respondent No.4 as the Chaukidar of the village. Against this order the petitioner went up in appear before the Collector pleading inter- alia that the order of the Sub divisional Magistrate appointing respondent No.4 as the Chaukidar is arbitrary and against the law and facts.

The Collector thereafter dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 28.1.2004. It is this order which has been impugned by the petitioner.

Mr. P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to hear the appeal as under the Punjab Chaukidara Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the powers for appointment of Chaukidar have been delegated to the Sub Divisional Officer and these powers have been delegated by the Deputy Commissioner. Once these powers have been delegated by the Deputy Commissioner to a subordinate authority then appeal against the order of such subordinate authority cannot be heard by the Deputy Commissioner himself as this will amount to judging his own cause. In support of this contention he drew our attention to Rule 42 C.W.P.No.6001 of 2004 3

of the said Rules. Rule 42 is extracted herein.

"42. All orders of the Deputy Commissioner in regard to the fixing of the number of village watchmen, the mode of their remuneration and the levying of the same, shall be subject to control, revision and alteration by the Commissioner to whom he is subordinate but all orders by a delegated authority shall be appealable to the Deputy Commissioner or to such authority as the Deputy Commissioner may specify."

Mr. R.S.Mamli, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders as they are in complete conformity with the Rules. Apart from this, he drew our attention to the resolution of the Panchayat to the effect that there were complaints against the petitioner who is alleged to be an alcoholic and remains drunk. He also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported as Badlu v.The State of Haryana and others, 1971 P.L.J. 1.

We have heard the learned counsel and find that the plea of the petitioner is unsustainable. A perusal of Rule 42 shows that the same is in two parts. First portion of Rule 42 lays down that all orders of the Deputy Commissioner in regard to the fixing of the number of village watchmen, the mode of their remuneration and the levying of the same, shall be subject to control, revision and alteration by the Commissioner to whom the Deputy Commissioner is subordinate. The second portion of the Rule states that all orders by a delegated authority shall be appealable to the Deputy Commissioner C.W.P.No.6001 of 2004 4

or to such authority as the Deputy Commissioner may specify.

A bare reading of the rule leaves no one in doubt that the present controversy is covered by the second portion of the rule which is a distinct rule in itself. Admittedly, the Deputy Commissioner had delegated the powers to the Sub Divisional Officer and once an order is passed by the Sub divisional officer then by virtue of Rule 42 itself the Deputy Commissioner could have the powers to hear the appeal. There is absolutely no ambiguity on this count.

We are in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Single Bench of this Court in Badlu's case (supra).

Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the impugned orders were arbitrary, inasmuch as the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the first instance had appointed the petitioner as Chaukidar and there was no occasion to upset that order by which he had been appointed as the Chaukidar. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well. There are two resolutions of the Gram Panchayat dated 25.10.2001 and 13.3.2002 in which the Gram Panchayat had objected to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he remains drunk.

In view of these circumstances even the discretion vested in the competent authority has been exercised judiciously.

We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order and do not find it a fit case to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

C.W.P.No.6001 of 2004 5

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.

(MAHESH GROVER)

JUDGE

May 8, 2006 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)

JUDGE

dss


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.