IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22537 of 2010 Date of decision: 21st December, 2010 Nirbhai Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional AG, Punjab for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to denotify the election of Sarpanch of village Narikey, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, against whom no-confidence-motion has been passed by 2/3rd majority of the members of Gram Sabha. 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 the present case since no notification has been issued to denotify the election of the Sarpanch, he will continue to remain in office. Civil Writ Petition No. 22537 of 2010 Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he intends to challenge the vires of the above said ordinance as the same is ultra-vires of the Constitution of India and can only be applied prospectively and will have no bearing on the resolution (Annexure P-2) dated 14th October, 2010 passed by the 2/3rd majority of the Gram Sabha. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in ‘Raj Pal Chhabra v. State of Haryana’ 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 608 to contend that the ordinance can only be applied prospectively and the same will have no bearing upon the resolution passed before issuance of the same. However, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that no pleadings were made in the present writ petition regarding prospective operation of the ordinance and it being ultra-vires of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to challenge the vires of the above said ordinance and to say that it will only apply prospectively and will have no bearing upon the resolution/proceedings carried earlier to its issuance. As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 21, 2010 rps 2