Civil Writ Petition No.4190 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4190 of 2011 Date of Decision:26.04.2011 Sarabjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement of, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Manakpur, Block Rajpura, District Patiala, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The petitioner claimed that the Panches of rival group moved an application and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajpura (respondent No.3)(for brevity “the BDPO”) issued notice/letter dated 03.09.2010 to convene a meeting, scheduled to be held on 13.09.2010. Again, the meeting was fixed for 20.09.2010 by the BDPO, to consider the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion'. On 18.09.2010, the petitioner was stated to have sent a written request(Annexure P-2) to the BDPO, to postpone the meeting, scheduled to be held on 20.09.2010, on the ground that he was not in a position to attend the Civil Writ Petition No.4190 of 2011 2 meeting, as he had to go out of station due to some personal problem. According to the petitioner, that although no valid meeting was held, but still the impugned resolution(Annexure P-3) of 'No Confidence Motion' was stated to have been illegally passed against him on 20.09.2010. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution(Annexure P-3), inter alia, pleading that the impugned resolution is not only arbitrary and illegal, but against the statutory provisions of Section 19 of the Act(since omitted) as well. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought to challenge the impugned resolution (Annexure P-3), in the manner indicated hereinabove. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. As is clear that Section 19 (since omitted) of the Act regulated the provisions of passing of No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch in this regard. Section 19(2) of the Act postulated that The Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall, within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of application under sub-section(1), convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat by giving seven clear days in notice, for discussing and taking decision on the no-confidence motion. Meaning thereby “seven clear days” notice was legally required to be issued to the Panches to participate in the meeting to consider the “no confidence motion”. Moreover, Proviso to this Section further posits that no such application shall be made unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Sarpanch assumed his office. 6. That means, the mandatory ingredients/conditions enumerated in Section 19 of the Act have to be complied with by the respondents, before passing Civil Writ Petition No.4190 of 2011 3 the impugned resolution(Annexure P-3), which are totally lacking in the instant case. In this manner, the impugned resolution deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.23113 of 2010 titled as M alook Singh Versus State of Punjab and others , decided on 18.04.2011 in this relevant connection. 7. Not only that, during the course of arguments, learned State Counsel has produced the copy of the Notification bearing No.17-Leg./2011 dated 21.04.2011, by virtue of which, the amended Act, omitting Section 19, was enforced and made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010. 8. Meaning thereby, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act were not on the statute book, when the impugned resolution(Annexure P-3) was passed on 20.09.2010, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be quashed in this regard. 9. Faced with the situation, the parties are ad idem that in view of the provisions of the amended Act, omitting the provisions of Section 19 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010, the impugned resolution(Annexure P-3) deserves to be set aside. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned Resolution (Annexure P-3) is hereby set aside in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention here that the natural consequences would follow accordingly. April 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE