CWP Nol.20846 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20846 of 2010 Date of decision: December 21, 2010. Gurtej Singh Panch & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Devinder Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Shri G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent- State and the same is taken on record. Present writ petition has been filed by the seven Panches of Gram Panchayat of village Kot Sukhia, District Faridkot. They have prayed that in pursuance of No Confidence Motion carried by 2/3rd majority of the Panchayat of the Gram Sabha, removal of respondent No.5 – Sarpanch, Paramjit Kaur, be notified. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the respondent-State, has submitted that the State of Punjab has issued an ordinance called “The Punjab Panchayati Raj CWP Nol.20846 of 2010 -: 2 :- (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010” on December 14, 2010, whereby Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which prescribed removal of the Sarpanch by No Confidence Motion by 2/3rd majority, has been repealed. It is submitted that, therefore, respondent No.5 cannot be de-notified as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Shri D.K. Kaushal, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the ordinance issued by the State of Punjab is ultra vires of the Constitution of India and therefore, he intends to challenge the vires of the notification and also to say that the notification will apply prospectively and will have no bearing on the resolution Annexure P-3, passed on 20th October, 2010. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that since the ordinance was issued after filing of the writ petition, no pleadings to the effect that the ordinance is ultra vires of the Constitution and will not apply retrospectively, have been made in the present writ petition. He submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to challenge the vires of the ordinance. With liberty to the petitioners to assail the ordinance, being ultra vires of the Constitution, and further to say that it will have only prospective application, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] December 21, 2010. Judge kadyan