CWP No. 11435 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11435 of 2011 Date of Decision: 06.7.2011. Gulzar Singh Sarpanch .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notice dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) and proceedings held in pursuance of this notice vide resolution dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) On the asking of the court, Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. The case of the petitioner is that as per Section 19 clause (2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (the Act for short), seven days clear notice was required to be issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer for discussing and taking decision on 'no confidence motion'. However, in the present case clear seven days notice had not been issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. CWP No. 11435 of 2011 -2- It has been held by this Court in Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 349 as under:- “6. 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 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'. 7. The Apex Court in M.N.Abdual 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. Vs. 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 CWP No. 11435 of 2011 -3- 1st 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 1st and the last date should be excluded.” Therefore, the notice issued on 25.8.2005 for 1.9.2005 does not given seven clear days' notice as envisaged under Section 19 of the Act. The meeting of 1.9.2005 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.” In the present case notice was issued on 5.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) for discussion on the 'no confidence motion', moved against the Sarpanch for 11.10.2010. In pursuance of the said notice, meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 11.10.2010 and the resolution of 'no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch was passed on the said date. Thus, a clear seven CWP No. 11435 of 2011 -4- days notice had not been issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer for holding the meeting to discuss 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner. Since the notice (Annexure P-1) had not been issued as per Section 19 clause (2) of the Act, the said notice was illegal and is liable to be set aside. The proceedings held in the meeting, in pursuance of an illegal notice, are also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The notice dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) and resolution in pursuance thereto dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) are set aside. (SABINA) JUDGE July 06, 2011 Gurpreet