Civil Writ Petition No.477 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.477 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.01.2011 Baaj Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general panchayat elections held in the year, 2008, Smt.Gurmeet Kaur was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Akoie Sahib, Tehsil and District Sangrur, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The petitioner claimed that in pursuance of Resolution dated 04.10.2010(Annexure P-1) of No Confidence Motion, Gurmeet Kaur was removed from the post of Sarpanch and he(petitioner) was authorised Panch to perform the duty of the Sarpanch for the time being, till the appointment of a regular Sarpanch. According to the petitioner that the respondents are not allowing him to work as an authorised Panch on the ground of omission of Section 19 of the Act with effect from 14.12.2010 by virtue of impugned Ordinance(Annexure P-2). 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the action of the respondents and filed the instant writ petition in the nature of mandamus directing them to appoint him as a Sarpanch of the indicated Gram Panchayat. Civil Writ Petition No.477 of 2011 2 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to me, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 4. However, the main argument of the learned counsel that since Gurmeet Kaur was removed from the post of Sarpanch by way of Resolution (Annexure P-1) and the petitioner was authorised Panch to perform the duty of the Sarpanch, so, the respondents ought to have appointed him as a regular Sarpanch, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record that the removal of Gurmeet Kaur, Sarpanch, was not de-notified prior to omission of Section 19 of the Act, in view of Ordinance(Annexure P-2) and the petitioner was only authorised Panch to perform the duty of the Sarpanch. 6. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, arises for determination in this case, is whether the petitioner is entitled to be termed as a duly elected Sarpanch or not? 7. Having regard to the contention of the learned counsel, to me, the petitioner has no claim over the post of Sarpanch, in question. 8. An identical question arose in case Baljit Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others in Civil Writ Petition No.208 of 2011, wherein it was held as under:- “What is not disputed here is that Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing resolution of No Confidence Motion, has already been omitted by the State Govt. It is not a matter of dispute that neither the removal of Sarpanches/private respondents was de-notified, nor the elections of newly elected Sarpanches(petitioners) were notified, till the omission of Section 19 of the Act by the State Government. Therefore, the earlier elected Sarpanches/private respondents, will be deemed to continue as Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats of their respective villages.” 9. The observation in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the Civil Writ Petition No.477 of 2011 3 problem in hand. 10. Therefore, unless and until, the removal of duly elected Sarpanch, on the basis of No Confidence Motion is de-notified and the name of duly elected new Sarpanch is notified before the omission of Section 19 of the Act, by virtue of Ordinance(Annexure P-2), Gurmeet Kaur will be deemed to be the Sarpanch of the village. In that eventuality, the petitioner did not have any legitimate claim on the post of Sarpanch, which can be enforced as such in this petition. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. January 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.477 of 2011 4