Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2011 Date of Decision:10.05.2011 Sukha 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.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Mandeep K.Sajjan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 8. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election held in the year 2008, petitioner-Sukha Singh was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Mahalam, District Ferozepur, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Since then he was working for the welfare of the village and the villagers were happy with his functioning. 2. According to the petitioner, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No.3(for brevity “the BDPO”) issued a notice dated 20.11.2010(Annexure P-2), to convene a meeting, scheduled to be held on 01.12.2010, to consider the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion'. The petitioner claimed that although no valid meeting was held, but still the resolution of 'No Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2011 2 Confidence Motion'(Annexure P-1) was passed on 01.12.2010, contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The case set-up by the petitioner, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that the impugned resolution(Annexure P-1) was passed against the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj(Amendment) Ordinance, 2010(for short “the Ordinance”), omitting Section 19 of the Act. It was explained that mere passing of resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' is not sufficient. As, the name of the petitioner was not de-notified by the Government before the omission of Section 19 of the Act, therefore, he will be deemed to Sarpanch of the village. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought to challenge the impugned resolution(Annexure P-1), in the manner described hereinabove. 5. The official respondents could not possibly contest the petition, in view of the amendment of Ordinance by the State Government. However, private respondent Nos.4 to 8 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. The contesting respondents claimed that the petitioner did not bother about the welfare and development of the village, due to non-cooperation, five members Panchayat out of seven Panches, moved an application to the BDPO and the meeting was convened, in which resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' was rightly passed, which was stated to be legal and valid. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2011 3 my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch, by passing a resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' has already been omitted by the State Government. Admittedly, neither the removal of the petitioner-Sarpanch was de-notified, nor the election of any newly elected Sarpanch was notified, till the omission of Section 19 of the Act by the State Government. Therefore, the petitioner earlier elected Sarpanch will be deemed to continue as a Sarpanch of the indicated Gram Panchayat, in view of the law laid down by this Court in case Baljit Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, (2011- 1) PLR 560. 8. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. Section 19(since omitted) of the Act earlier regulated the provisions of passing the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch in this context, which reads as under:- “Section 19(1):- An application regarding intention to move a motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch be made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer by a majority of Panches. Provided that no such application shall be made unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Sarpanch assumed his office. (2) 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.” xx xx xx xx 9. Meaning thereby, the respondents were legally required to comply with all the essential conditions/ingredients emanating from Section 19(since omitted) of the Act, before passing the impugned resolution of 'No Confidence Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2011 4 Motion' against the petitioner in this relevant behalf. 10. Not only that, during the course of arguments, learned State Counsel has produced the copy of the Notification bearing No.17-Leg./2011 dated 21.04.2011, by means of which, the amended Act, omitting Section 19(earlier dealing with the resolution of passing the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion'), was enforced and made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010. 11. That means, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act were not on the statute book, when the impugned resolution(Annexure P-1) was passed on 01.12.2010. Therefore, the impugned resolution(Annexure P-1) passed in the absence of any legal provisions, cannot legally be maintained in this relevant connection. 12. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the provisions of the amended Act, omitting the provisions of Section 19 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010, the impugned resolution dated 01.12.2010(Annexure P-1) deserves to be set aside. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and, thus, seen from any angle, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned resolution dated 01.12.2010(Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby set aside in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention here that the compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly. May 10, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2011 5 Civil Misc. No.1117 of 2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2011 Present: Mr.Mandeep K.Sajjan, Advocate, for applicant-respondent Nos.4 to 8. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Baldev Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant-respondent Nos.4 to 8 intends to withdraw the application for vacation of stay. Dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for. May 10, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE