LPA NO. 1445 OF 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA NO. 1445 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 01.11.2010 Buta Singh ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate with Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. **** MUKUL MUDGAL C.J.(ORAL) 1. This appeal challenges the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 25.10.2010 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed a writ petition challenging 'No Confidence Motion' passed on 13.09.2010 removing him from the post of Sarpanch, on the ground that notice dated 10.09.2010 convening meeting on 13.9.2010 for carrying the 'No Confidence Motion' was against the provisions of sub Section (2) of Section 19 of the Act because it was not a clear notice of 7 days. 3. Before considering the main plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to reproduce Section 19(2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, which reads as follow:- LPA NO. 1445 OF 2010 [2] “19(2) The Block Development & Panchayat Officer shall, within a period of fifteen days of the receipts of application under sub section (1), convene a meeting of the Gram Sabha by giving seven clear days in notice, for discussing and taking decision 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that since notice dated 10.9.2010 for holding a meeting on 13.9.2010 was a fresh notice and in violation of mandate of Section 19(2) of the Act which provides seven days clear notice for convening a meeting, the meeting convened on 13.9.2010 in which 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the appellant was invalid and should be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the second notice dated 10.9.2010 could not be issued because the earlier notice dated 30.8.2010 having been failed, therefore, no notice within two years could be brought. 5. We are not in agreement with the pleas urged by learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, the factual situation of the case needs to be clarified. The notice issued on 30.8.2010 for the vote of 'No Confidence Motion' which was in respect of meeting to be held on 9.9.2010 was undisputedly a 7 days clear notice as provided under Section 19(2) of the Act but on that date the same could not be carried out because the concerned Block Development & Panchayat Officer who had to preside over the meeting was on leave and the meeting could not be held. Since the meeting had not taken place, the notice dated 30.8.2010 cannot be said to have lapsed and the bar provided under Section 19(2) of the Act cannot come into play. A reading of Section 19(2) of the Act clearly provides that in case the LPA NO. 1445 OF 2010 [3] notice is placed before the House for consideration and is considered but then fail, in that eventuality the bar of two years comes into existence. In this regard, in a similar matter i.e. LPA No. 1324 of 2010, this Court has already held as under:- “Infact, the learned single Judge has meticulously followed the mandate of Section 19 of the Act by giving seven clear days' notice. The proviso clearly states that the motion must be lost before a bar of two years comes into play. Infact, the motion was carried, but the decision was set aside on the ground of seven clear days' notice was not given. Nevertheless, a direction was given to hold fresh meeting after seven clear days' notice. In our view, the motion which though carried without seven clear days' notice cannot be said to have been lost so as to attract the bar of two years.” 6. Since the notice dated 30.8.2010 had not lapsed because the meeting on 9.9.2010 did not take place as B.D.P.O. who had to preside over the meeting was on leave, the notice issued on 10.9.2010 cannot be said to be a fresh notice requiring a clear seven days notice mandate provided under the Act but was a notice in continuation of notice dated 30.8.2010. Moreover, on 13.9.2010 all the members of the panchayat had attended the meeting. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and hence the meeting held to pass 'No Confidence Motion' shall not vitiate. The learned Single Judge further held that had one member not attended the meeting, the inference would have been different. 7. Further more, it is clear that notice dated 30.8.2010 was the only relevant notice which could not be given effect to on 9.9.2010 for no fault of the requisitionist(s) only because of B.D.P.O. was on leave. In such a case the main plea of the appellant LPA NO. 1445 OF 2010 [4] that seven days prior notice was not given fails and in addition to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that meeting held on 13.9.2010 was lawful. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 1.11.2010 'ravinder'