CWP No. 19849 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19849 of 2010 Date of decision : 24.02.2011 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paliwinder Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos 1 to 3 Mr. Mohd. Yousuf, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to97. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of Gram Panchayat election, the petitioner was elected as a Panch on 26.05.2008, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein referred to be as “the Act”). Subsequently, on 28.07.2008, he was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Narikey, District Sangrur. 2. Petitioner claimed that he started many development works but respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were not interested in the development works in the village. They pressurized the petitioner to resign from the post of Sarpanch under the influence of local leader. They were stated to have obtained his signatures on blank paper and prepared his resignation letter. When he (petitioner) came to know, although he withdrew the resignation before the expiry of statutory period of 15 CWP No. 19849 of 2010 -2- days under the Act but the same was wrongly accepted, which necessitated him to challenge it through the medium of CWP No. 17190 of 2010. The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 04.10.2010 accepting his resignation was set aside by this Court. 3. The case of the petitioner further proceeds that immediately thereafter the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Malerkotla-I, District Sangrur (respondent No. 3) (for short “the BDPO”) issued letter/notice dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P1) to convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for 14.10.2010 without any basis. The BDPO did not give seven clear days notice to the petitioner. A false report of Chowkidar was got prepared that the notice was pasted on the wall of the house of the petitioner on 12.10.2010. Thereafter, on 14.10.2010, the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were stated to have passed the impugned resolution of no confidence motion (Annexure P2) against the petitioner in the alleged meeting held under the chairmanship of Gurjant Singh, Junior Engineer of Block Malerkotla 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned letter (Annexure P1) and resolution/order (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that the BDPO has neither given seven clear days in the notice to the petitioner before convening the meeting nor meeting could be presided over by Junior Engineer. Therefore, the impugned resolution (Annexure P2) was stated to be illegal and without jurisdiction. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned order/resolution (Annexure P3), in the manner indicated herein above. 5. Although, the official respondents did not file any written statement, however, the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the reply, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the CWP No. 19849 of 2010 -3- petitioner. 6. The Junior Engineer claimed to be competent to preside over the meeting as he was stated to be senior, as per certificate of pay scale, issued by the BDPO (Annexure R4/1). The case set up by the contesting respondents, in brief, insofar as relevant was that the BDPO has rightly issued notice/letter (Annexure P1) and resolution of no confidence motion (Annexure P2) was also rightly passed in the meeting presided over by the Junior Engineer. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and relevant provisions of the Act, with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted, in this context. 8. As is evident from the record that the impugned resolution of no confidence motion (Annexure P2) against the petitioner was stated to have rightly been passed in the meeting presided over by the Junior Engineer, who was not competent to chair the meeting. 9. Above being the position, now the short question, that arises for determination in the present petition is, as to whether Junior Engineer was competent to preside over the meeting under Section 19 of the Act or not? 10. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer is in the negative and Junior Engineer was not legally competent to preside over the indicated meeting, in this context. 11. As is clear, Section 19 (3) of the Act (since omitted) postulated that the meeting of no confidence motion has to be convened which shall be presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or an officer not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer authorised by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in this behalf, by [a two-third majority of the total number CWP No. 19849 of 2010 -4- of Panches holding office for the time being], the Sarpanch shall be deemed to have been removed from his office, and a new Sarpanch shall be elected in his place. Provided that if the no-confidence motion is lost another such motion shall not be moved against that Sarpanch before the expiry of two years from the date of its having been lost. 12. Meaning thereby, the meeting to consider the resolution of no confidence motion has to be presided over by the BDPO or an officer not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer authorised by the BDPO in this behalf. The mere fact that the pay scale of sanctioned post of Junior Engineer and that of Social Education and Panchayat Officer are almost equal (which was stoutly denied by the petitioner) is not a valid ground to conclude that Junior Engineer is not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer, as urged on behalf of the contesting respondents. Moreover, no other cogent material is forthcoming on record to prove, that either the BDPO has authorised Junior Engineer to preside over the meeting or he (Junior Engineer) was not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer. In this manner, the impugned resolution (Annexure P2) passed in an illegally convened meeting and presided over by un-authorised person, is not only illegal and arbitrary but against the statutory provisions of the Act as well and cannot legally be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. At the same time, this matter can be viewed from a different angle. Admittedly, Section 19 of the Act which used to deal with the removal of Sarpanch by passing a resolution of no confidence motion, has since been repealed, by virtue of The Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010 (Punjab Ordinance No. 9 of 2010) on 14.12.2010. What is not disputed here, is that neither the removal of petitioner-Sarpanch has been de-notified nor the election of new Sarpanch has been held/notified, till today. In that eventuality, petitioner will CWP No. 19849 of 2010 -5- be deemed to be a Sarpanch of the village, for all intents and purposes, unless and until he is otherwise removed by the competent authority, in view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 208 of 2011 titled as Baljit Kaur wife of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 06.01.2011. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted with costs. Consequently, the impugned resolution/order (Annexure P2) is hereby set aside. 15. Needless to mention here, that the respondents may act in accordance with law, in this relevant connection. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 24, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No