Skip to content


Ramzan Khan Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 4372 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1985P& H242
ActsGram Panchayat Act - Sections 100(2)
AppellantRamzan Khan
RespondentState of Haryana and ors.
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........the minister has no power of revision in this case as the order of the deputy commissioner was a quasi-judicial order and that against the quasi-judicial order, no revision has been provided under the act.2. the jurisdiction of the minister had been challenged and the minister has taken in his order note of this fact. he disposed of the argument by observing that the order of reinstatement of a suspended sarpanch is an executive order and, therefore, he while exercising order and, therefore, he while exercising powers of the government was competent to revise that order.3. it is not disputed that the government has power to revise only an executive order under the provisions of s. 100(2) of the gram panchayat act, which is in the following terms:--'100. government may call for.....
Judgment:

D.S. Tewatia, J.

1. The petitioner Ramzan Khan, who was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Basai on 10-6-1978 was served with a charge-sheet on 23-2-1979. In an inquiry held by Sub-Divisional Officer, out of two charges, he was found guilty of one charge i.e. of selling a Pipal tree for Rs. 3500/-, depositing only Rs. 1450/- and thus pocketing the balance amount. The Deputy Commissioner, who was to pass order either of accepting the report or rejecting the said report, vide his order dt. 26-3-1980, Annexure P. 5, gave benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquitted him of the charges and ordered his reinstatement with immediate effect. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Minister in charge of the portfolio of Development & Panchayat, who vide his order dt. 8-7-1981, Annexure P.7, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that it was a non-speaking order and ordered regular enquiry and appointed S. D. O.(C), Nuh, as enquiry officer. This order of the Minister has been impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the Minister has no power of revision in this case as the order of the Deputy Commissioner was a quasi-judicial order and that against the quasi-judicial order, no revision has been provided under the Act.

2. The jurisdiction of the Minister had been challenged and the Minister has taken in his order note of this fact. He disposed of the argument by observing that the order of reinstatement of a suspended Sarpanch is an executive order and, therefore, he while exercising order and, therefore, he while exercising powers of the Government was competent to revise that order.

3. It is not disputed that the Government has power to revise only an executive order under the provisions of S. 100(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act, which is in the following terms:--

'100. Government may call for proceedings.

(1) xx xx xx

(2) Government may, at any time, call for and examine the record of any executive order made under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may confirm, modify or rescind such order '.

4. The question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner is an executive order or a quasi-judicial order. In our opinion, the order of the Deputy Commissioner in this case was a quasi-judicial order in that by the said order the Deputy Commissioner decided the inquiry and acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him and inquired into by the Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom evidence had been led and who has submitted a detailed inquiry report Annexure P-2, to this petition and it is only as a result of the decision in which the Deputy Commissioner found the petitioner as not guilty of the charges levelled against him that he passed the order of reinstatement, as the petitioner was under suspension. Such an order would not be an executive order because reinstatement in this case was ordered in the wake of the decision of the Deputy commissioner exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him and before the Minister it was not merely an order reinstating the petitioner but an order whereby the Deputy Commissioner had exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.

5. For the reasons aforementioned, we hold that the order of the Deputy Commissioner being quasi-judicial, the Minister had no power to revise the same.

6. However, the matter does not end here. A perusal of the Deputy Commissioner's order, which is in the following terms, would show that, in fact, it was a non-speaking order, as observed by the Minister in his order:--

'After a careful perusal and consideration of the enquiry report submitted by the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil), Ferozepur Jhirka, against Shri Ramzan Khan, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Basai, Block Nuh, giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge.

That I, Naseem Ahmed, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, reinstate Ramzan Khan, Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Basai, Block Nuh, in his office as Sarpanch with immediate effect.

Gurgaon

.Sd/- Naseem Ahmed,

Dated

Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon '.

Even though the Deputy Commissioner's order is not under challenge before us but in our inherent powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution and in order to render justice, we also quash the Deputy Commissioner's order dt. 26-3-1980, Annexure P-5, because it is clearly illegal being non-speaking one. The result is that the Deputy Commissioner shall have to reconsider the matter on merits again in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Surinder Singh, J.

7. I agree.

8. Ordered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //