Civil Writ Petition No. 21845 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 21845 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.12.2010 Gamdoor Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Baldev S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Mehma Bhagwana, District Bathinda. The Gram Panchayat consists of seven Panches including Sarpanch. Six members of the Gram Panchayat moved “No Confidence Motion” against the petitioner. On the date fixed, to deliberate upon “No Confidence Motion”, all the seven members of the Panchayat, including the petitioner/Sarpanch, attended the meeting. Six members of the Panchayat have not supported the petitioner and “No Confidence Motion” was carried out. The petitioner was the solitary voter for himself. In the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following three arguments seeking annulment of the proceedings dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P1) wherein “No Confidence Motion” was recorded: A) Though the meeting was held under the Civil Writ Petition No. 21845 of 2010 2 Chairmanship of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda, yet he had not attested the proceedings but had signed the same by giving an endorsement “seen”. Therefore, this Court should construe that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer has neither presided over the meeting nor recorded the proceedings thereof. He had signed the proceedings of the meeting, after the resolution was passed and that is why he gave an endorsement “seen”. B) The meeting was not held in the office of Gram Sabha but in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda. Therefore, it is in contravention with the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”), which specifically states that every meeting of Gram Panchayat should be held in the area of Gram Sabha. C) That the resolution for “No Confidence Motion” was moved by Kulwinder Kaur, Panch and nobody had seconded the same. Therefore, the proceedings should be held to be bad. The test to determine the validity of the proceedings is whether any prejudice has been caused to the person invoking jurisdiction of the writ Court or not. All the three submissions, raised above, can be dealt with as under. Civil Writ Petition No. 21845 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda, had not attested the proceedings of the meeting. The meaning of “attest”, in the Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary is “to show or prove”. In the present case, the meeting was presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda. After recording of the proceedings, the endorsement of “seen” was given. Thus, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda, has authenticated as to what was recorded in the proceedings book. The second ground that the meeting was not held in the Gram Sabha has no significance as all the seven members of the Panchayat had attended the meeting. No grouse has been made that anyone had not attended the meeting as he was not aware of the venue of the meeting. Lastly, even though Kulwinder Kaur, Panch, had proposed “No Confidence Motion”, but all the remaining five Panches had also moved the resolution. Therefore, all the five Panches had seconded the resolution and voted against the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be held to be bad. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that conduct of a meeting and recording of its proceedings are two different things. The proceedings of the meeting may have been validly carried out but may have not been rightly recorded. Non recording of the proceedings in its rightful manner may be an irregularity and in the facts of each case, it is to be determined as to whether such irregularity causes any prejudice or not. On the facts of the present case, no such finding can be returned. Thus, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine, with no order as to costs. Civil Writ Petition No. 21845 of 2010 4 As a parting note, this Court can only say that it is better to take the defeat, in stride, in a graceful manner. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 8, 2010 “DK”