(1.) A lurking doubt about the correctness of the view expressed by a Bench of this court in Naurang Lal v. Gram Panchayat of Village Gujarwas (1964) 66 Pun LR 28, right at the motion stage, made us (my learned brother S. P. Goyal, J and myself) to admit this petition to hearing by a Full Bench and that is how the matter is before us now. Vide this judgment, it has been ruled that in spite of the language of S. 23 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short, the Act), the Gram Panchayat has no power to impose a prospective recurring penalty at the stage of first conviction for the breach of its order made absolute under S. 21 of the Act. The relevant part of these two sections reads as follows:-
(2.) BEFORE adverting to the legal contention raised in this petition, it is but necessary to notice the following undisputed facts. The respondent Gram Panchayat, on Dec. 26, 1981 made and served a conditional order (Annexure P. 2) on the petitioner directing him to remove the encroachment made by him by constructing a wall on a public path, within three days, i. e. up to Dec. 29, 1981 case he had any objection to the said direction, to appear before the Panchayat at 11 a. m. on Dec. 29, 1981 along with his evidence justifying the modification or the setting aside of that order. The petitioner, however, refused to comply with the direction contained in Annexure P. 2. Then on Dec. 29, 1981 (wrongly typed as 19th Dec. 1981) the Panchayat unanimously resolved that for the above noted defiance of its direction by the petitioner, a fine of Rs. 20/- be imposed on him. It was further resolved that in case he failed to remove the above noted encroachment by Jan. 17, 1982, he would pay a recurring penalty of Rs. 1/- per day thereafter. This resolution of the Panchayat is Annexure P. 1 to the petition. Petitioner's appeal under S. 23-A of the Act against the above noted order of the Panchayat was dismissed by the District Development and Panchayats Officer. Gurdaspur, on Oct. 14, 1982, vide order Annexure P. 3 His further revision under S. 100 of the Act against the appellate order was dismissed by Shri Dayal Singh Saroya, Joint director Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of the State Government) with the observation that under S. 100 of the Act, he could only look into the legality and propriety of an executive order passed by the Panchayat and since the proceedings taken against the petitioner under Ss. 21 and 23 of the Act were quasi-judicial proceedings in nature, he could do nothing in the matter. This order is Annexure P. 4 to the petition.
(3.) THE solitary contention raised by Mr. S. S. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, now is that under S. 23 of the Act, the Panchayat could not impose a prospective recurring penalty right at the first stage of his conviction. In a nutshell, the submission is that in case the Panchayat was to impose any such penalty on the petitioner for non-compliance of its order under S. 21 of the Act, it was bound to summon the petitioner from time to time and in case he was found not to have removed the encroachment, it could continue to impose on him the recurring fine up to the prescribed limit of Rs. 500/ -. For this stand of his he places firm reliance on Naurang Lal's case (1964 (66) Pun LR 28) (supra) which undoubtedly fully supports his submission.