IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21561 of 2010 Date of decision: 21st December, 2010 Paramjit Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional AG, Punjab for the respondents. Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the caveator. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Nihalgarh, Block Sunam, District Sangrur. She has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the resolution (Annexure P-5) dated 26th November, 2010 passed by 2/3rd majority of members of the Gram Panchayat, be quashed. One of the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner was that three out of the five members of the Gram Panchayat will not constitute 2/3rd majority. After hearing counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved. However, during the pendency of the present writ petition, 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 Civil Writ Petition No. 21561 of 2010 Gram Panchayat, has been omitted. Counsel for the State has further submitted that in the present case, in pursuance of the resolution (Annexure P-5), no notification has been issued to denotify the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, therefore, she will continue to remain in office. Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate appearing on behalf of the caveator, has submitted that the ordinance so issued by the State of Punjab is ultra-vires of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the ordinance will only have a prospective operation and will have no bearing on the resolution (Annexure P-5). Therefore, Mr.Singla has submitted that a liberty be granted to him to challenge the vires of the ordinance and to say that it will only have a prospective operation. In view of the statement made by counsel for the State, the petitioner shall continue to be the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Nihalgarh, Block Sunam, District Sangrur and accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed, as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to counsel for the caveator to assail the vires of the ordinance so issued by the State of Punjab and to contend that it will only have a prospective operation. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 21, 2010 rps 2