Civil Writ Petition No.19400 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 12.1.2011 Manjeet Kaur, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Phoose Mandi, Block Bhatinda. ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.S.S.Bhinder, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 to 11. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general panchayat elections held in June 2008, Manjeet Kaur petitioner was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Phoose Mandi, Block Bhatinda, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). As she was stated to have lost confidence, therefore, five, out of total seven members Panchayat, moved an application for convening the meeting of No Confidence Motion against her. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.3) issued notice dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure P1) to the petitioner and all members panchayat, convening a meeting on 14.10.2010 at 12 P.M. in his office for considering the resolution of No Confidence Motion. 2. In this manner, the meeting was convened and a resolution of No Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner, vide resolution dated Civil Writ Petition No.19400 of 2010 2 14.10.2010 (Annexure P2) and she was removed from the office of Sarpanch as contemplated under section 19 of the Act and Lakhwinderjit Singh (respondent No.7) was elected as new Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned resolution (Annexure P2), by invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 5. However, the main celebrated argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the meeting to consider the resolution of No Confidence Motion was convened by the BDPO, but the same was held under the chairmanship of Social Education and Panchayat Officer (for short “SEPO”) (respondent No.4), so, the impugned resolution (Annexure P2) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that in the wake of application/complaint, respondent No.3 convened a meeting on 14.10.2010, which was presided over by SEPO. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced on record the copy of letter bearing No.4087 dated 12.10.2010, which is taken on record as Annexure RA, which would reveal that BDPO-respondent No.3 has duly authorized SEPO (respondent No.4) to preside over the meeting. 7. Section 19(3) of the Act postulates that “if the no-confidence motion is carried in the meeting convened under sub-section (2) which shall be presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or an officer not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer authorized by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in this behalf, by a two-third majority of the total number of Panches holding office for the time being, the Sarpanch shall be deemed to have been removed from his office, and a new Sarpanch shall be elected Civil Writ Petition No.19400 of 2010 3 in his place.” Once the BDPO (respondent No.3) has duly authorized the SEPO (respondent No.4), vide letter (Annexure RA), then it cannot possibly be saith that the meeting of No Confidence Motion was not legally convened, in which, the resolution (Annexure P2) of No Confidence Motion was carried out in this regard. 8. What is not disputed here is that vide impugned resolution (Annexure P2), the petitioner was removed and Lakhwinderjit Singh (respondent No.7) was elected as new Sarpanch and duly notified by the Government, vide notification dated 2.11.2010 (Annexure R-1). Once the name of petitioner was de- notified as Sarpanch and name of newly elected Sarpanch Lakhwinderjit Singh was notified in notification (Annexure R1), then petitioner becomes functus- officio and did not have any legal claim on the post of Sarpanch. Therefore, she has no legal right, which can be enforced as such in the instant writ petition. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 12.1.2011 Judge AS