CWP Nos.208, 250 and 264 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No.208 of 2011 Baljit Kaur wife of Makhan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No.250 of 2011 Dharminder Singh Panch of Gurdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No.264 of 2011 Charanjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Date of Decision:- 6.1.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- S/Shri Jagjit Gill and N.P.S.Mann, Advocates for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated three writ petitions, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petitions, have been extracted from CWP No.208 of 2011 titled as “Baljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others” in this context. CWP Nos.208, 250 and 264 of 2011 2 2. The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that in pursuance of general panchayat elections held in the month of May, 2008, respondent Nos.6 in CWP Nos.208 and 264 of 2011 and respondent No.7 in CWP No.250 of 2011 were duly elected as Sarpanches of indicated Gram Panchayats, under the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder (hereafter to be referred as “the Act”). 3. The petitioners claimed that in the wake of respective resolutions of No Confidence Motion under Section 19 of the Act, the elected Sarpanches/private respondents were removed from the posts of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats of their respective villages. Consequently, they (petitioners) were stated to have been elected as new Sarpanches by majority. According to the petitioners, the elections of new Sarpanches were not notified by the authorities of the State Government on the ground of omission of Section 19 of the Act, by virtue of notification dated 14.12.2010, conveyed vide letter (Annexure P8), the operative part of which is as under:- “You have passed only No confidence motion against the Sarpanch and that has not been de-notified, you have elected the Sarpanch prior to the de-notification and that election has also not been notified, hence you have not completed the process prior to the omission of Section 19, therefore, it cannot be completed after issuance of Ordinance. Hence name of newly elected sarpanch could not be notified after issuance of Ordinance. Therefore earlier position be maintained.” 4. Not only that, thereafter, the respondents issued another order (Annexure P9) restoring the position of initially elected Sarpanches/private respondents in this respect. 5. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and filed the present petitions, challenging the impugned action, of not notifying them as new Sarpanches, by the respondents, invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of CWP Nos.208, 250 and 264 of 2011 3 India. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the records and relevant provisions of the Act with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions. 7. Ex facie, the celebrated arguments of the learned counsel that since the initially elected Sarpanches/private respondents, were removed by way of resolutions of No Confidence Motion under Section 19 of the Act and petitioners were re-elected as new Sarpanches, so, the respondents were duty bound to notify them (petitioners) as new Sarpanches, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. As is evident from the record that the private respondents were initially duly elected as Sarpanches of their respective Gram Panchayats. They were removed from the posts of Sarpanches on account of No Confidence Motion and petitioners were stated to have been elected in their places by respective resolutions in this behalf. 9. Above being the position on record, now the sole question, that arises for determination in these petitions, is as to whether mere passing of resolutions would confer any legal status on the petitioners as Sarpanches in this relevant connection or not? 10. As is clear that Section 13 of the Act postulates that “every election of a Panch shall be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette and no member shall enter upon his duties until his election has been so notified and he has taken an oath or affirmation as specified in Schedule 1 and if a person refused to take an oath or affirmation, referred to in sub-section (1), his election shall be deemed to be invalid and a fresh election shall be got conducted.” 11. Sequelly, Section 13-A posits that “the Deputy Commissioner or any officer or official of the State Government, authorized by him in this behalf, shall CWP Nos.208, 250 and 264 of 2011 4 call the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat in the manner, as may be prescribed, as soon as, the election of all Panches is notified to elect the Sarpanch from amongst them.” 12. Likewise, amended Rules 45 and 45-A of the Punjab Panchayat Election (Amendment) Rules, 2008 were notified, vide notification dated 11.11.2008. Rule 45-A envisaged that after the election of directly elected Panches is notified by the Government and the elected Panches have taken oath or affirmation under section 13 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner or any officer or official authorized by him in this behalf, shall call a meeting, as laid down under section 13-A of the aforesaid Act, after giving notice of a minimum period of twenty four hours in Form 'X' to such Panches to elect the Sarpanch in accordance with the provisions of these rules. According to sub-rule (3) of this Rule, as soon as the Panches have assembled at the appointed time and place, the Presiding Officer shall call upon the Panches present, to propose themselves for the election of Sarpanch, if they so desire. The names of such candidates shall be recorded in Form XIII and read out by the Presiding Officer to the Panches present. Sub-rule (8) further escalates that the election of the Sarpanch shall be made from the category for which it is reserved. If there is only one candidate available for the office of Sarpanch of that particular reserved category, then he/she shall be deemed to have been elected unopposed for the office of Sarpanch. The copy of the result of the election of Sarpanch so held, shall immediately be, sent by the officer, conducting the election to the District Electoral Officer, the Election Commission and the State Government and a copy of the same may also be given to the elected candidate. 13. A co-joint reading of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that mere passing of a resolution of No Confidence Motion removing the elected Sarpanches/private respondents and electing new Sarpanches (petitioners) is not sufficient in this regard and status of a Sarpanch cannot legally be conferred on the CWP Nos.208, 250 and 264 of 2011 5 petitioners, unless and until, the entire contemplated procedure under the Act and Rules, is completed, removal of elected Sarpanches/private respondents is de- notified and election of new Sarpanches (petitioners) are duly notified by the Government in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. 14. An identical question arose in Civil Writ Petition bearing No.22815 of 2010, which came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.), vide order dated 21.12.2010, the operative part of which is as under:- “Counsel for the State has submitted that the State of Punjab has issued an ordinance, called “Punjab Panchayati Raj Amendment Ordinance, 2010 on 14th December, 2010, whereby Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which prescribes removal of a Sarpanch by passing a resolution by 2/3rd majority of the members of Gram Panchayat has been omitted. Counsel for the State has further submitted that in case in pursuance of the resolution (Annexure P-5) no notification has been issued to de-notify the election, the petitioner Sarpanch shall continue to remain in the office. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the statement made by counsel for the State, present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same be dismissed as such. Ordered accordingly.” 15. What is not disputed here is that Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing resolution of No Confidence Motion, has already been omitted by the State Govt. It is not a matter of dispute that neither the removal of the Sarpanches/private respondents was de-notified nor the elections of newly elected Sarpanches (petitioners) were notified, till the omission of Section 19 of the Act by the State Government. Therefore, the earlier elected Sarpanches/private respondents, will be deemed to continue as Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats of their respective villages. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances and the aforementioned CWP Nos.208, 250 and 264 of 2011 6 observations are “mutatis mutandis” fully applicable to the present controversy. 16. In this manner, petitioners have no legitimate claim on the offices of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats of their respective villages. Hence, they have no legal right, which can be enforced by way of instant petitions in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 17. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 18. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instants writ petitions are hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 6.1.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No