Civil Writ Petition No.714 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.714 of 2011 Date of Decision:09.05.2011 Jasvir Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.D.S.Daler, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) In the wake of general Gram Panchayat election held in the year 2008, petitioner-Jasvir Singh was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Bhattian Khurd, District Sangrur, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The petitioner claimed that although he has made many developments in the village, after obtaining approval of the appropriate authorities, but some of the Panches of his rival group, submitted an application dated 31.08.2010(Annexure P/1), to pass a resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against him to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No.4(for brevity “the BDPO”). In pursuance of the application(Annexure P/1), the BDPO issued notice dated 09.09.2010(Annexure P/2), to convene a meeting, scheduled to be held on 17.09.2010, to consider the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion'. According to the petitioner, that although no legal meeting was convened, but the Civil Writ Petition No.714 of 2011 2 impugned resolution of 'No Confidence Motion'(Annexure P/3) was stated to have been passed on 17.09.2010, removing him from the post of Sarpanch. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution(Annexure P/3), inter alia, pleading that the impugned resolution is not only arbitrary and illegal, but against the statutory provisions of Section 19 of the Act(since omitted) as well. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, the petitioner claimed that the impugned resolution(Annexure P/3) was passed when the Punjab Government has issued The Punjab Panchayati Raj(Amendment) Ordinance, 2010(for short “the Ordinance”), by virtue of which, Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch was omitted. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned resolution(Annexure P/3), in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. The official respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not possibly contest the petition, in view of the issuance of the Ordinance by the State Govt, whereas, respondent No.5 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix. However, it was claimed that the Ordinance has no effect till the finality of passing of the Act by the Government. It will not be out of place to mention here that contesting respondent No.5 has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 7. As is clear that Section 19(since omitted) of the Act earlier regulated the provisions of passing of 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch in this behalf, which reads as under:- “Section 19(1):- An application regarding intention to move a Civil Writ Petition No.714 of 2011 3 motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch be made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer by a majority of Panches. Provided that no such application shall be made unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Sarpanch assumed his office. (2) The Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall, within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of application under sub-section(1), convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat by giving seven clear days in notice, for discussing and taking decision on the no-confidence motion.” xx xx xx xx 8. Meaning thereby, the respondents were legally required to comply with all the essential conditions/ingredients emanating from Section 19(since omitted) of the Act, before passing the impugned resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner in this respect. 9. What is not disputed here is that although the petitioner has challenged the impugned resolution(Annexure P/3) on a variety of grounds, but during the course of arguments, learned State Counsel has produced the copy of the Notification bearing No.17-Leg./2011 dated 21.04.2011, by virtue of which, the amended Act, omitting Section 19, was enforced and made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010. 10. That means, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act were not on the statute book, when the impugned resolution(Annexure P/3) was passed on 17.09.2010 and such resolution passed in the absence of any statutory provisions, cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be quashed in this respect. 11. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the provisions of the amended Act, omitting the provisions of Section 19 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010, the impugned resolution dated 17.09.2010(Annexure P/3) deserves to be set aside. Civil Writ Petition No.714 of 2011 4 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned Resolution (Annexure P/3) is hereby set aside in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention here that the compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly. May 09, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE