IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1426 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2011 Harwinder Singh -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against resolution dated 3.9.2010 removing the appellant from the office of Sarpanch by way of no confidence of 2/3rd majority of the panches. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the No Confidence Motion was moved within two years from the date of assumption of office of Sarpanch by the appellant. The Sarpanch assumed the office on 24.7.2008 while application for convening meeting was moved on 23.7.2010. 3. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the objection holding that the meeting was held on 3.9.2010 which was beyond the period of two years. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the application must be made by 2/3rd majority and in the present case, the application L.P.A. No.1426 of 2011 did not have genuine signatures of five or more members constituting 2/3rd majority. Reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court in Harbans Lal v. Director Gram Panchayat & Development Punjab and anr. 1981 (Vol.III) AILLR 330, Sukhchain Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 432, Gurdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 433 and Baljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 402. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Admittedly, at the time of consideration of No Confidence Motion, five persons had voted against the appellant. The appellant having lost the confidence of more than 2/3rd majority, this Court cannot interfere on technicalities. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable. In Harbans Lal, challenge was to legality of meeting which stands on different footing from situation in the present case when no confidence stands duly passed by the requisite majority. Other cases are orders of learned Judge on interpretation of judgment in Harbans Lal. 7. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE August 12, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2