IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18537 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 06, 2011 Charanjit Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent Nos.4 to 7. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. In view of order of even date passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.53 of 2011, the writ petition is taken up for final adjudication today itself. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Resolutions dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-3), 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-4), and notice dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) being in violation of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. CWP No.18537 of 2010 [2] 2. It has been contended that earlier a Sarpanch could be removed by passing a resolution by 2/3rd of majority members of the Gram Panchayat. Considering the situation, the impugned Resolutions have been passed. 3. It has been contended that after passing of the impugned resolution recommending removal on account of no confidence motion brought against the petitioner (Sarpanch), on 14.12.2010, The Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance 2010 has been passed whereby Section 19 of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which provides for removal of Sarpanch, has been omitted. 4. Learned counsel for the official respondents contends that in case name of the petitioner has not been de-notified, case of the petitioner would be covered under the scope of the amendment carried out in the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that name of the petitioner has not been de-notified. 6. In view of the above, it is directed that the petitioner shall continue to serve as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (AJAI LAMBA) January 06, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?