IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 248 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 16, 2011 Inderjit Singh …Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar Gagat and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. MR. MR. MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NA RAJIV NA RAJIV NA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant contempt petition complains violation of the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 21005 of 2010 (P-1), by the respondents. On 22.12.2010, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous on the basis of the statement made by the learned State counsel that the State of Punjab has issued an ordinance, namely, ‘the Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010’ on 14.12.2010, 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Raj Act, 1994, which prescribed removal of the Sarpanch by ‘No Confidence Motion’ by 2/3rd majority, has been repealed.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 was further submitted that since no notification was issued to de-notify COCP No. 248 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the continuation of the petitioner as Sarpanch, he would continue to be Sarpanch. 2. The stand taken in the written statement filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Dhuri, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that no notification was ever issued to de-notify the continuation of the petitioner as Sarpanch, therefore, he continued to work as such. Even the deponent-Mr. Rajinder Gupta, BDPO, Dhuri, had sent the attested signature of the petitioner to the bank for the purpose of withdrawal of funds from accounts of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner has been operating the accounts. 3. In view of the above, we find no violation of the order dated 22.12.2010 (P-1) and the contempt petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November 16 November 16 November 16 November 16, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor