Civil Writ Petition No. 15860 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 15860 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.9.2010 Ravinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. Mr. Mehar Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 13531 of 2010 An application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by three Panches, namely Balwinder Singh, Harjit Kaur and Charanjit Kaur, with a prayer that they be impleaded as respondents No.5 to 7 to the present writ petition. Notice of the application given to the counsel opposite. He has no objection if it is allowed. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Application is allowed. The above named applicants are ordered to be impleaded as Civil Writ Petition No. 15860 of 2010 (O&M) 2 respondents No.5 to 7, in the array of parties. Civil Writ Petition No. 15860 of 2010 Gram Sabha of village Kot Ise Khan consists of five Panches including the Sarpanch. One Panch has died. Three members of the Gram Sabha are against the petitioner-Sarpanch. The only objection raised in the present writ petition is that no clear seven days' notice was given to the petitioner for holding the meeting wherein “No Confidence Motion” was carried by 2/3rd majority. The petitioner has failed to justify as to how holding of irregular meetings has caused grave prejudice to him. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court, noticing the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the view that a fresh meeting be held so that the Sarpanch, who is in minority, should not continue in office, as out of four members, including the petitioner-Sarpanch, three are against him and have also impleaded themselves as respondents No.5 to 7. Thus, the meeting held on 26.8.2010 is ordered to be nonest and void ab initio as no seven days' clear notice was given, in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The case of the petitioner is that notice was issued to him on 20.8.2010 and the meeting was fixed for 26.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2006(2) Recent Civil Reports 349 to say that seven days' clear notice ought to be given excluding the the day when notice is issued and the day when the meeting is to be held. Accordingly, respondent No.4-Block Development and Civil Writ Petition No. 15860 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Panchayat Officer, Block Dharamkot, is directed to issue a fresh notice within a period of one week from today. In the notice, seven days clear time shall be given to the members of the Panchayat including the present petitioner. The Presiding/Returning Officer shall exclude the day when the notice is issued and the day when the meeting is to be held while computing seven days. In the meeting so held, the No Confidence Motion earlier submitted by Balwinder Singh, Harjit Kaur and Charanjit Kaur shall be put to vote as this Court has held that the meeting held on 26.8.2010 is nonest, void ab initio and any resolution passed in the meeting held on 26.8.2010 will have no effect and it will be assumed that the same is of no consequence and effect. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 23, 2010 “DK”