IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22773 of 2010 Date of decision: 21st December, 2010 Harpal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed by a Panch of Gram Sabha village Beer Khurd, Block Bhikhi, District Mansa praying that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued and the respondents be directed to hold an election to the post of designate Panch (Sarpanch), as the earlier Sarpanch was removed by passing a resolution (Annexure P-1) dated 21st October, 2010 by 2/3rd majority of the members of Gram Sabha. Issue notice of motion. On the asking of Court, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the petition has been supplied to him. Counsel for the State has submitted that the State of Punjab has issued an ordinance, called “Punjab Panchayati Raj Amendment Ordinance, 2010” on 14th December, 2010, whereby Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which prescribes removal of a Sarpanch by passing a resolution by 2/3rd majority of the members of Gram Panchayat, has been omitted. Counsel for the State has further submitted that where a Sarpanch has been removed by 2/3rd majority of Civil Writ Petition No. 22773 of 2010 members of the Gram Panchayat but the same has not been denotified, he will continue to remain in office. In view of the legislative change, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above said ordinance issued by the State of Punjab is ultra-vires of the Constitution of India and will only have a prospective application. Learned counsel has further submitted that the ordinance will have no bearing on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat before its issuance. However, counsel for the petitioner has stated that since before filing of the present writ petition he was not aware of issuance of the said ordinance, no pleadings have been made in the present petition to say that the ordinance so issued by the State of Punjab is ultra-vires and will only have a prospective operation. Learned counsel has prayed that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to challenge the vires of the above said ordinance and to say that it will only apply prospectively and will have no bearing upon the resolution/proceedings carried earlier to its issuance. As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 21, 2010 rps 2