CWP No. 18410 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18410 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.03.2011 Swaran Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Baldev Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paliwinder Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos 1 to 4 Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Succinctly, the brief facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Village Awaan, District Ferozepur, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein referred to be as “the Act”). Subsequently, Sukhchain Singh, Kewal Singh and Pardeep Kaur, Panches gave an application dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure P2) to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Zira, District Ferozepur (respondent No. 4) (for short “the BDPO”) for the appointment of Administrator in place of Gram Panchayat of the village. 2. A special meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened on 14.09.2010 under the chairmanship of the BDPO for the utilisation of grant of Rs. 1 lac under RDF Scheme but the same was deferred, vide resolution dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P3). The petitioner moved application dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure P5) CWP No. 18410 of 2010 -2- to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Zira, District Ferozepur (respondent No. 3) (for short “the DDPO”) requesting him not to appoint the Administrator, as he wants to execute the development works, as per Government instructions and Rules. 3. Not only that, the BDPO issued notices bearing no. 211-15 dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P4) to the Panches to convene a meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 24.09.2010 for passing the resolution of “no confidence motion” against the petitioner-Sarpanch. Accordingly, a meeting was convened on 24.09.2010 in which the above named three Panches were present and were stated to have passed the resolution of “no confidence motion” (Annexure P1) against the petitioner-Sarpanch 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution (Annexure P1), invoking the provisions of Article 226227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioner that neither the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened under Section 23 of the Act nor seven days clear notice was issued to him to convene the meeting for passing the resolution of “no confidence motion”. Therefore, the impugned resolution (Annexure P1) is not only illegal but against the statutory provisions of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned resolution (Annexure P-1) in the manner indicated here-in-above. 6. Although, private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed the caveat petition but they did not file any written statement. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their joint written statement., inter alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. It was admitted that the notices dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P4) of the meeting, which was scheduled to be CWP No. 18410 of 2010 -3- convened on 24.09.2010, was issued to the petitioner and member Panches of the Gram Panchayat. The meeting was stated to have legally been convened, wherein resolution of “no confidence motion” was passed against the petitioner. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, relevant provisions of the Act, with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be accepted, in this context. 8. As is evident from the record that notices dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P4) were issued to convene the meeting on 24.09.2010 to pass the resolution of “no confidence motion” against the petitioner. 9. As is clear, Section 19 (2) of the Act envisages that The Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall, within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of application under sub-section(1), convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat by giving seven clear days in notice, for discussing and taking decision on the no-confidence motion. That means “seven clear days” notice is legally required to be issued to convene a meeting to consider the “no confidence motion”, as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act. 10. What is not disputed here is that notices (Annexure P-4) is dated 20.09.2010, to convene a meeting on 24.9.2010 (Annexure P1) and no such notice by giving seven clear days was issued in the instant case. Thus, there was a complete violation of the statutory and mandatory provisions. This matter is not res-integra and is well settled. 11. An identical question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in case Mohinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and others 2006(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 349. Having interpreted the provisions of Section 19(2) and Section 9 of General CWP No. 18410 of 2010 -4- Clauses Act, it was ruled as under:- “ Now adverting to the second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued to the petitioner did not give seven clear days as envisaged in sub section (2) of Section 19 of the Act. We find force in the stand of the petitioner. Sub-section (2) provides that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the said application convene a meeting of Gram Sabha by giving seven clear days in notice for discussing and taking decision on the 'no-confidence motion.” The Apex Court in M.N. Abdul Rawoof's case (supra) in para 10 has held that for calculating clear days the first and last date should be excluded. Para 10 of the judgment reads thus:- “The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court in The Pioneer Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. The Municipal Council Nagercoil, (1961) 3 SCR 609: (AIR 1967 SC 684) where the expression was which was being interpreted, “not being less than one month.” This Court held that in order that a notice should be valid the expression “not being less than one month” would mean that there must be notice of 30 clear days. This would be possible only if the Ist and the last day on which the notice is issued is excluded. Rather than helping the respondent in our opinion the said decision fortifies the view which we have taken namely, that the period specified is the minimum period. Not less than one month meant that 30 clear days' notice had to be given and it is only in order to ensure that 30 clear days' notice is given that, basing on Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, it was observed that the Ist and the last date should be excluded. “Therefore, the notice issued on 25.8.2005 for 01.09.2005 does not give seven clear days' notice as envisaged under Section 19 of the Act. The meeting of 01.9.2005 thus, cannot be said to have been legally held and accordingly, 'no- confidence motion' passed on that date is untenable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. However, it is directed that the respondents shall issue fresh notice of holding the meeting of no confidence after following due procedure as prescribed under the Act and the same shall be held within two months from today.” 12. In this manner, the impugned resolution dated 24.09.2010 CWP No. 18410 of 2010 -5- (Annexure P-1) entirely based on totally illegal notices dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P4), is not only arbitrary, without jurisdiction, but against the statutory provisions of the Act, as well. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, mutatis-mutandis is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Hence, the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the impugned resolution (Annexure P-1) is illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory provisions of the Act, has considerable force and the contrary arguments on behalf of contesting respondents deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Therefore, the impugned resolution (Annexuere P1) is illegal, arbitrary and cannot legally be sustained in the eyes of law, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted with costs. The impugned resolution (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby set aside, in this context. 14. Needless to mention here, that the respondents will act in accordance with law, in this relevant connection. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge March 16, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No