IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.237 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.4.2011 Sukhdev Singh. -----Appellant. Vs. The State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 8. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing consideration of No Confidence Motion, if any moved in accordance with law. Only grievance in this appeal is that the relevant provision of the Punjab Panchayati Raj, 1994 has since been deleted though the deletion is under challenge. L.P.A. No.237 of 2011 Needless to say that if any action has to be taken by concerned statutory authorities, the same has to be as per statutory provisions. No interference is, thus, called for with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 29, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2 L.P.A. No.237 of 2011 This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing consideration of No Confidence Motion, if any moved in accordance with law. Only grievance in this appeal is that the relevant provision of the ….. Act has since been deleted, …. though the deletion is under challenge. Needless to say that if any action has to be taken by concerned statutory authorities, the same has to be as per statutory provisions. No interference is, thus, called for with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. 212 This appeal has been preferred against order allowing the writ petition of the contesting respondents against resolution dated 14.10.2010, Annexure P-2, passed by the Gram Panchayat removing the contesting respondents from the post of Sarpanch on account of No Confidence Motion passed in meeting presided over by the nominee of the …. Development and Panchayat Officer who is of the rank not below of Social Development and Panchayat Officer as per Section 19 of the Act… Learned Single Judge held that pay scale of the nominee being higher was not enough to treat him of the requiste rank. 3 L.P.A. No.237 of 2011 We are unable to subscribe to this view. There is no statutory definition of the rank, in absence of which the BDPO could have authorized a person of appropriate rank considered to be higher to the specified rank under Section 19(3) of the Act. Thus, the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned provision has been repealed, though the repeal is under challenge. While setting aside the impugned order, we make it clear that operation of the resolution against the writ petitioner will be as per statutory provisions or as per orders passed in proceedings against the repeal of provision. The appeal is disposed of. 100 Dismissed as infructuous on the statement of learned counsel for the appellant. However, the stay granted on 21.1.2011 will continue for two weeks, as it is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that such extension has been allowed in other similar cases. 138 This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition against setting 4 L.P.A. No.237 of 2011 aside of resolution of No Confidence Motion passed against the appellant. According to learned Single Judge, resolution of No Confidence Motion was deemed to be passed even without the 2/3rd majority i.e. more than three persons. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that as per claim requirement of statutory provision i.e. Section 19 of the … Act, No Confidence Motion is required to be passed. ,,,,, This being the undisputed position, the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents is dismissed. 5