[259] Bakhshi Ram State of Punjab and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] issuance of a writ in the nature of to 3 to take action against respondent No.4 [2] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18947 Date of Decision : Ram Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. L.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to 3 to take action against respondent No.4 On 26.08.2022, this Court passed the following order: “ The petitioner alleges that respondent No.4 had embezzled panchayat funds while she was the Sarpanch. She remained Sarpanch during the period 2013 12.06.2022 was filed to take action against her been done and, thus, the present writ petition has been filed. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to suggest that some embezzlement was done by respondent No. 4. The argument that infact streets were not paved cuts no ice with this Co record does not indicate whether any complaint was filed immediately after the alleged completion of the works. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 18947-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.07.2026 …Petitioner ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. for respondent No.4. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against respondent No.4. Court passed the following order:- The petitioner alleges that respondent No.4 had embezzled panchayat funds while she was the Sarpanch. She remained Sarpanch during the period 2013- 2019. Complaint dated 12.06.2022 was filed to take action against her but nothing has been done and, thus, the present writ petition has been filed. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to suggest that some embezzlement was done by respondent No. 4. The argument that infact streets were not paved cuts no ice with this Court as the record does not indicate whether any complaint was filed immediately after the alleged completion of the works. seeks directing respondent Nos.1 The petitioner alleges that respondent No.4 had embezzled panchayat funds while she was the Sarpanch. She remained 2019. Complaint dated but nothing has been done and, thus, the present writ petition has been filed. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to suggest that some embezzlement was done by respondent No. 4. The argument that urt as the record does not indicate whether any complaint was filed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.16 18:56 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-18947-2022 (O&M) -2- Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to place on record relevant material. Adjourned sine die. To be listed as and when an appropriate application is filed in this regard.” [3] Keeping in view that respondent No.4 was in the office of Sarpanch of Village from 01.04.2013 to 11.12.2019 and the petitioner submitted complaints/representation on 12.06.2022, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The same is ordered to be dismissed. [4] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 14.07.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.16 18:56 I agree to specified portions of this document