CWP No. 11322 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 11322 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.7.2011 Randeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-6).. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Gram Panchayat Dhilwan Nabha consisted of 9 members including the Sarpanch. Six members moved an application for passing of resolution of 'no confidence motion' to respondent No.3 against the Sarpanch under Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 CWP No. 11322 of 2011 2 (the Act for short). A meeting was convened on 4.10.2010 and 'no confidence motion' was passed against respondent No.4 vide Annexure P-4 and consequently, respondent No.4 was removed from the post of Sarpanch and thereafter, the petitioner was elected as authorised Panch on 13.10.2010. Respondents No.4 to 7 filed a petition challenging the 'no confidence motion' and the said petition was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 4.11.2010. Appeal filed by respondents No.4 to 7 against the said order was allowed vide order dated 30.5.2011 passed by respondent No.1. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Court had erred in allowing the appeal as the question as to whether seven days' clear notice had been given to respondent No.4 before accepting the 'no confidence motion' was irrelevant as respondent No.4 had duly participated in the 'no confidence motion' proceedings and had, thus, not suffered any prejudice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Section 19 of the Act (since substituted) deals with 'no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch. As per clause (2) of the said Section, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall within a period of 15 days of the receipt of application under sub section (1) convene a meeting of the gram panchayat by giving seven clear days notice for discussing and taking decision on the 'no confidence motion'. Admittedly, notice on application seeking 'no confidence motion' was issued on 27.9.2010 and a meeting was convened by CWP No. 11322 of 2011 3 the Block Development and Panchayat Officer on 4.10.2010 and on the said date, 'no confidence motion' was passed against respondent No.4. It has been held by this Court in Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 349 as under:- “6. Now adverting to the second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued to the petitioner did not give seven clear days as envisaged in sub section (2) of the Act. We find force in the stand of the petitioner. Sub Section (2) provides that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the said application convene a meeting of Gram Sabha by giving seven clear days in notice for discussing and taking decision on the 'no confidence motion'. 7. The Apex Court in M.N.Abdual Rawoof's case (supra) in para 10 has held that for calculating clear days the first and last date should be excluded. Para 10 of the judgment reads thus:- “The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court in The Pioneer Motors Pvt. ltd. Vs. The Municipal Council, Nagercoil (1961) 3 SCR 609 (AIR 1967 SC 684) where the expression was, which was being interpreted, "not being less than one month." This Court held that in order that a notice should be valid the expression not being less than one month would mean that there must CWP No. 11322 of 2011 4 be notice of 30 clear days. This would be possible only if the 1st and the last day on which the notice is issued is excluded. Rather than helping the respondent in our opinion the said decision fortifies the view which we have taken namely, that the period specified is the minimum period. Not less than one month meant that 30 clear days notice had to be given and it is only in order to ensure that 30 clear days notice is given that, basing on section 9 of the General Clauses Act, it was observed that the 1st and the last date should be excluded.” Therefore, the notice issued on 25.8.2005 for 1.9.2005 does not given seven clear days' notice as envisaged under Section 19 of the Act. The meeting of 1.9.2005 thus, cannot be said to have been legally held and accordingly, 'no confidence motion' passed on that date is untenable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. However, it is directed that the respondents shall issue fresh notice of holding the meeting of no-confidence after following due procedure as prescribed under the Act and the same shall be held within two months from today.” In the present case, 'no confidence motion' was passed against respondent No.4 on 4.10.2010 based on totally illegal notice dated 27.9.2010 as a clear 7 days' notice had not been issued before passing of the 'no confidence motion' in terms of Section 19 (2) of the Act. Since the notice qua 'no confidence motion' had not CWP No. 11322 of 2011 5 been issued as per law, the same was liable to be set aside. The meeting held on 4.10.2010, thus, cannot be said to have been legally held and hence, the 'no confidence motion' passed against the sarpanch on that date is illegal. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 04, 2011 anita