IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15779 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.08.2011 Jagjeet Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr.L.S. Padda, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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? ALOK SINGH J. (ORAL) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4. No need to issue notice to the respondent No.5, at this stage. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed of at admission stage. Some of the Panches of Gram Panchayat, Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur have moved an application under Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) showing intention to move a motion of 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch, to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kalanaur (respondent No.4). Respondent No. 4 has rejected the application to convene a meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the Sarpanch, on the ground that there are total 17 Panches and out of 17, only 8 Panches have moved requisition to discuss no confidence motion. CWP No. 15779 of 2011 -2- .. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that observation of respondent no. 4 that there are total 17 Panches in the Gram Panchayat, Kalanaur is factually incorrect while, in fact, there are total 13 Panches and out of 13, 9 Panches have signed the application to requisite the meeting to discuss no confidence motion, therefore, respondent No. 4 was duty bound to requisite the meeting as required under Section 19 of the Act. He further states that even otherwise, after the amendment in Section 19(1) vide Punjab Act No. 12 of 2008, 2/3rd majority is not required to move the application to requisite meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the Sarpanch. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has fairly stated that after amendment made in the year 2008 in Section 19(1) of the Act, 2/3rd majority is not required to move application for convening meeting for discussing no confidence motion. He however, states that the controversy as to whether there were 13 Panches as alleged by the petitioner or 17 Panches, as recorded by respondent no. 4, can be resolved by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kalanaur once again, by hearing the petitioner and summoning the record. In view of the statement made by learned Deputy Advocate General, present petition is allowed, impugned order dated 18.11.2010 is set-aside. However, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kalanaur, respondent no.4 shall pass order afresh after hearing the petitioner and after recording finding as to whether there are 13 Panches as alleged by the petitioner or 17 Panches as recorded by him. He shall pass the order on the application of the petitioner and other Panches within 14 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. Petition stands disposed of. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 26.08.2011 som