CWP No. 11305 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 11305 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.7.2011 Nirmal Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the proceedings dated 16.6.2011 (Annexure P-3) vide which respondent No.5 was elected as authorised panch of gram panchayat, Fateh Majri, Block Samana District Patiala. Case of the petitioners, in brief, as set out in the petition is that the election of gram panchayat Fateh Majri Block Samana District Patiala was held in May 2008. Khem Singh-respondent No.5 was elected as panch of the gram panchayat along with six other members. The post of sarpanch was reserved for the Scheduled Caste (Woman). Balwinder Kaur was elected as sarpanch of the CWP No. 11305 of 2011 2 gram panchayat and Gurjant Singh, Pavitter Singh, Avtar Singh, Khem Singh, Lal Singh, Malkait Kaur were elected as panches. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, vide order dated 8.6.2011 (Annexure P-1) suspended the Sarpanch and three members of the panchayat on the allegation that they had obstructed the open auction of shamlat land of the panchayat. Respondent No.2 on 9.6.2011 directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Samana to elect the authorised panch after calling a meeting of the gram panchayat. The proceedings of the gram panchayat were conducted on 16.6.2011 by Block Development and Panchayat Officer and respondent No.5 was elected as authorised panch. Respondent No.5 belongs to general category. Since the panchayat was in minority, the authorised panch could not have been elected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that casual vacancies of sarpanch and panches could only be filled up as per Section 22 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (the Act for short) and quorums and procedure were spelled out under Section 24 of the Act. The authorised panch had been elected and was to hold the office in violation of Sections 22 and 24 of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Section 22 of the Act reads as under:- “ Filling of casual vacancies of Sarpanch and Panches. (1) Whenever a vacancy occurs by death, resignation, removal or otherwise of a Sarpanch or CWP No. 11305 of 2011 3 of a Panch the vacancy shall be filled up by way of election: Provided that if the vacancy relates to the Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes or to Women, the vacancy shall be filled up out of the persons belonging to the category to which category of person the vacancy relates. (2) A person elected to fill a casual vacancy under sub-section (1) shall be elected for the remainder of his predecessor's term of office: Provided that where the remainder of period for which a Panch or Sarpanch is to be elected is less than six months, it shall not be, necessary to hold any election under this section to fill such a vacancy.” A reading of the above provision reveals that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Section 22 of the Act deals with filling up of casual vacancies of sarpanchs and panches which have occurred by death, resignation, removal or otherwise and the vacancy has to be filled up by way of election. In the present case, a vacancy of sarpanch and panches has not occurred. The sarpanch and three panches have merely been suspended and have not been removed so far and as such the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the casual vacancy of sarpanch and panches was to be filled up in terms of Section 22 of the Act is mis-founded as at this stage no vacancy of sarpanch or panch has occurred. CWP No. 11305 of 2011 4 Section 24 of the Act reads as under:- “Quorums and Procedure. (1) The majority of Panches for the time being holding office shall form a quorum and if at the time appointed for the meeting, a quorum is not present - (a) the presiding authority shall wait for thirty minutes, and if within such period there is no quorum, the presiding authority shall adjourn the meeting to such time on the following day or such future day as he may fix; (b) similarly, the presiding authority after waiting for thirty minutes adjourn the meeting if, at any time, after it has begun attention is drawn to the want of a quorum and the business which could not be considered at the meeting postponed under clause (a) for want of quorum, shall be brought before and disposed of at the meeting so fixed or at any subsequent adjourned meeting at which there is a quorum. (2) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, at every meeting of the Gram Panchayat, the Sarpanch and in his absence a Panch elected out of the Panches present shall preside for the occasion. (3) All questions shall, unless otherwise specifically provided, be decided by a majority of votes of the present and voting and the Sarpanch or Panch presiding, as the CWP No. 11305 of 2011 5 case may be, unless he refrains from voting, shall give his vote before declaring the number of votes for and against a question and In the case of equality of votes, he may give his casting vote. (4) No member of a Gram Panchayat shall vote on, or take part in the discussion of any question coming up for consideration at a meeting of a Gram Panchayat, if the question is one in which apart from its general application to the public, he has any pecuniary interest, and if the person presiding has such an interest, he shall not preside over the meeting when such question comes up for consideration. (5) If the person presiding Is believed by any member present at the meeting to have any such pecuniary interest in any matter under discussion, and if a motion to that be carried, he shall not preside at the meeting during such discussion or vote on or take part in it and in such a case any member other than that member of the Gram Panchayat may be chosen to preside at the meeting during the continuance of such discussion.” Thus, as per the above provision, the majority of panches for the time being holding office shall form a quorum. In the present case, three panches, who are still continuing, will form the quorum for conduct of business of the panchayat as the sarpanch and three panches of the gram panchayat have been suspended. Hence, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the three panches were in minority and did not form the requisite quorum of CWP No. 11305 of 2011 6 the panchayat is mis-conceived and without any basis. The present petition has been filed by respondent No.1 Nirmal Singh Ex. Sarpanch and Gurjant Singh, panch (under suspension). It appears that Gurjant Singh, panch, who has since been suspended, does not want the work of the panchayat to continue after his suspension and has filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.5 Khem Singh has been elected as authorised panch of the gram panchayat so that the work of the panchayat may continue. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the proceedings conducted on 16.6.2011 (Annexure P-3) do not call for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 05, 2011 anita