CWP No.15662 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15662 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.08.2011 Arvind Kumar, Sarpanch ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: -Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3. There is no need to issue notice to the private respondents, at this stage. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition can be disposed of at admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seven days' clear notice is required to be served to convene the meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion'; if notice is not clear seven days' notice then any meeting held pursuant to the invalid notice would be nullity and shall stand vitiated; he contends that notice in the present case is dated 03.9.2010 and meeting in question was held on 10.09.2010 while as per judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2010 in CWP No.17943 of 2010, Mohinder Khan Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, date of CWP No.15662 of 2011 2 notice i.e. 03.09.2010 and date of meeting i.e. 10.9.2010 must be excluded while counting seven days. Therefore, meeting- Resolution dated 10.9.2010 and notification dated 30.6.2011 are liable to be illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that after amendment of Section 19 of the Act by Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2011 now no meeting can be convened to discuss 'No Confidence Motion'. He has further contended that no meeting can be convened for next two years from the date of 'No Confidence Motion' dated 10.9.2010 even if it is held that if application to call meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' was moved prior to amendment of Section 19, therefore, meeting can be convened as per Section 19 of the Act prior to its amendment. Admittedly, request was sent to convene the meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' prior to the amendment in Section 19, therefore, any request or application moved prior to the amendment in Section 19 of the Act shall be dealt with in accordance with the then prevailing law in view of Section 6(c) & (d) of the General Clauses Act. In the opinion of this Court, 'No Confidence Motion' cannot be moved within next two years if earlier 'No Confidence Motion' is lost. In the present case, notice dated 3.9.2010 and meeting dated 10.9.2010 to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' is hereby held illegal, therefore, fresh legal notice can be issued and proviso has no application in the present case. Present petition is allowed. Notice dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure P-1), resolution dated 10.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) and consequential notification, dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure P/3), whereby, the name of petitioner was deleted as Sarpanch, are hereby quashed. However, respondents shall be at liberty to issue fresh notice to convene meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion'. (Alok Singh) Judge August 25, 2011 som