Civil Writ Petition No.16822 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 10.1.2011 Charanjit Singh Panch and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ishwar Lal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.R.K.Garg, Advocate for respondent No.4. 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 core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general panchayat elections, the petitioners and private respondent No.4 were elected as members Panchayat of Gram Panchayat of village Kalaran, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, under the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). After completion of the statutory formalities, Satpal Singh private respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of the village. Dis- satisfied with the functioning of the Sarpanch, the petitioners submitted an application dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure P1) to the Director, Rural Development and Department of Panchayat (Punjab) (respondent No.2) for passing the resolution of No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch under Section 19 of the Act. The respondent No.2 directed the BDPO-respondent No.3 to conduct the proceedings under section 19 of the Act, vide letter dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P2), who, in turn, sent the letter dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P3) to the elected members of the Panchayat to attend the meeting on 16.8.2010. But no meeting was Civil Writ Petition No.16822 of 2010 2 held on that day. The petitioners moved an application (Annexure P4) to DDPO, Patiala, who again asked the BDPO to conduct No Confidence Motion meeting. Respondent No.3 was stated to have again issued letter (Annexure P5) to the concerned members to attend the meeting on 30.8.2010. No Confidence Motion meeting was held, wherein all the petitioners voted against the Sarpanch, but the BDPO was stated to have wrongly rejected the resolution of No Confidence Motion, vide impugned proceedings dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure P6). 2. Aggrieved by the action (Annexure P6) of respondent No.3, the petitioners reported the matter to respondent No.2, vide letter (Annexure P7), who sent a copy of the same to respondent No.3, vide letter dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P8) for taking necessary action. 3. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings (Annexure P6) of respondent No.3, by invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners and filed their respective written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections, of maintainability of the petition, in view of alternative remedy under Section 201 of the Act, locus standi and cause of action of the petitioners. Admitting the factual matrix, it was claimed that the notice was issued to Sarpanch and all the Panches to attend the meeting on 16.8.2010 at 10 A.M. in Block Office and meeting was held under the chairmanship of Makhan Singh, Panchayat Officer. But on that day, the petitioners did not turn up and elected Sarpanch-private respondent had already represented that he was unable to attend the meeting on account of bereavement of his relative. Thereafter, another meeting was fixed to be held on 30.8.2010, but the petitioners could not prove the 2/3rd majority, essential for passing resolution of No Confidence Motion under section 19 of the Act. As such, resolution of No Confidence Motion against private respondent No.4 could not be carried out. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all Civil Writ Petition No.16822 of 2010 3 other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record and relevant legal provisions of the Act with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. However, the main celebrated argument of the learned counsel that although the petitioners were present in 2/3rd majority on 30.8.2010, but respondent No.3 has wrongly rejected the resolution of No Confidence Motion against respondent No.4, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that in view of request (Annexure P1) of the petitioners, the respondents convened the meeting on 16.8.2010, but Jaswant Kaur, BDPO, Samana has filed her affidavit, stating therein that first meeting was held under the chairmanship of Makhan Singh, Panchayat Officer on 16.8.2010, but the petitioners did not turn up and Sarpanch showed his inability to attend the meeting due to bereavement of his relative. The second meeting was convened on 30.8.2010, but petitioners could not prove 2/3rd majority essential to carry out resolution of No Confidence Motion under section 19 of the Act. 8. Therefore, in view of categoric affidavit/reply, it cannot possibly be saith that the respondent-authorities did not act in accordance with law in the absence of any cogent material on record in this relevant connection. No cogent material is forth coming on record to corroborate the allegations levelled by the petitioners against the official respondents. Moreover, the petitioners did not approach the appropriate authorities and did not avail the alternative remedy as contemplated under section 201 of the Act before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. What is not disputed here is that the provisions of section 19 of the Act governing the proceedings of No Confidence Motion has already been omitted Civil Writ Petition No.16822 of 2010 4 by the State of Punjab by virtue of Ordinance, called Punjab Panchayati Raj Amendment Ordinance, 2010 w.e.f. 14th December, 2010. Meaning thereby, section 19 of the Act, which prescribed removal of a Sarpanch by passing a resolution by 2/3rd of the members of Gram Panchayat has already been omitted and is no longer on Statute Book. In that eventuality, otherwise also, no direction can be issued to the respondents to convene the indicated meeting in the absence of provisions of law. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 10.1.2011 Judge AS