IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 226 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 21, 2011 Paramjit Kaur …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NA RAJIV NA RAJIV NA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA Present: Mr.Gurinder S. Lalli, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUM M.M. KUM M.M. KUM M.M. KUMAR, J AR, J AR, J AR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 28.1.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner-appellant has lawfully tendered her resignation on 26.8.2010 from the office of the Sarpanch and it was accepted by means of impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (P-4). The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge and the same has been upheld by observing as under:- “3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter LPA No. 226 of 2011 (O&M) 2 deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 4. However, the solitary argument of learned counsel that as per Section 17 of the Act, the Sarpanch may resign his office by writing under his/her own hand addressed to the Deputy Director concerned, the resignation letter (Annexure P-3) is not in the hand of the petitioner, and since the same could not be accepted by the Deputy Director, so, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record, the resignation (Annexure P-3) is a typed letter, typed at the instance and submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that the resignation is not in her hand. It is clear from the impugned order (Annexure P-4) that the petitioner tendered her resignation (Annexure P-3) of her own from the post of Sarpanch due to her domestic engagement. Having verified, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Budhlada forwarded the same, which was rightly accepted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer. Therefore, no patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order in this relevant connection.” 2. Mr. Gurinder Singh Lalli, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has argued that Section 17 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) required issuance of LPA No. 226 of 2011 (O&M) 3 notice of 15 days to enable the petitioner-appellant to withdraw her resignation. No notice in terms of Section 17 of the Act was given. According to the learned counsel the petitioner-appellant came to know of her resignation only when a meeting of the Panchayat was fixed for holding the fresh election of Sarpanch (P-5). 3. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court would be warranted. Section 17 of the Act needs to be examined, which is as under:- “17. Resignation of Sarpanch:- (1) The Sarpanch may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Deputy Director concerned. (2) Every resignation under sub-section (1) shall take effect on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of its receipt unless within this period of fifteen days he withdraws such resignation by writing under his hand addressed to the prescribed authority.” 4. A perusal of the provision would show that a Sarpanch may resign the office by writing under his hand, addressed to the Deputy Director concerned and the resignation shall take effect on expiry of 15 days from the date of its receipt unless withdrawn. When the facts of the case are examined in the light of the aforesaid provision it is evident that resignation was tendered on 26.8.2010 and impugned order accepting the resignation was passed on 21.10.2010 (P-4), which was more than six weeks later. There was no letter sent later on by the petitioner-appellant withdrawing the resignation. LPA No. 226 of 2011 (O&M) 4 5. The provision even otherwise does not contemplate issuance of any notice. It is not possible to read anything of such a nature in the present provision. The argument of the learned counsel that a notice was required to be issued before passing order dated 21.10.2010 (P-4), in fact, would not require any detailed examination because there is neither any provision under Section 17 of the Act nor any lawful necessity for such a notice. The provision merely stipulates that resignation shall operate after 15 days. Therefore, there is no substance in the aforesaid submission. 6. In view of the above, the instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 21, , , , 201 201 201 2011 JUDGE UDGE UDGE UDGE PKapoor