L.P.A.No.1437 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.1437 of 2009 Date of Decision : 21.12.2009 Balbir Singh (Sarpanch) ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.12.2009, whereby challenge to the notice dated 23.10.2009 to convene Special Meeting to remove the present appellant as Sarpanch, was dismissed. The election to the Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Bansa , consisting of 14 Members, was held in April 2005. One Balwan Singh was elected as Sarpanch. However, said Balwan Singh was suspended on the charges of corruption. The action of suspension was challenged by Balwan Singh. After dismissal of the writ petition filed by Balwan Singh, fresh elections were conducted and one Veer Kaur was elected as Sarpanch on 22.12.2008. Veer Kaur died on 4.5.2009. The L.P.A.No.1437 of 2009 2 present appellant was nominated as Sarpanch on 1.6.2009. Subsequently, a communication (Annexure P-2) has been issued to convene a Special Meeting of the Panchayat in view of the No Confidence Motion against the present appellant. Aggrieved against the said notice, the appellant approached this Court in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner did not hold the post of Sarpanch, to which alone amended provisions of Rule 10 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'), would operate. Therefore, the argument that there could not be a No Confidence Motion, is not available to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the provisions of No Confidence Motion against an elected Sarpanch have been deleted by virtue of amendment carried out on 19.10.2000 in Rule 10 of the Rules. Therefore, once the petitioner is nominated as a Sarpanch, the procedure of No Confidence Motion for his removal cannot be resorted to. Reliance was also placed on Section 51(6) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), which contemplates the consequences after the removal of a Sarpanch. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and do not find any merit in the present appeal. It is Section 6 of the Act, which applicable to the facts of the present case. The said Section contemplates that whenever a vacancy occurs by death, resignation, removal or otherwise, a new Panch or Sarpanch etc. shall be elected in the manner as may be prescribed. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not elected Sarpanch as per the Rules prescribed for the elections of Sarpanch under Haryana Panchayati Raj L.P.A.No.1437 of 2009 3 Rules, 1995. Therefore, the appellant was an ad hoc Sarpanch appointed to discharge the duties of Sarpanch pending election in terms of sub- Section 1 of Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, though Annexure P-2 recites that it is to consider No Confidence Motion but substantially it is a notice for convening a Special Meeting to elect a Sarpanch after the death of Veer Kaur, previous Sarpanch. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which may warrant interference in the present intra Court appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21.12.2009 (JORA SINGH) Vimal JUDGE