IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17943 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 15, 2010 Mohinder Khan. …Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 11. Mr. Shailender Mohan, Advocate, for respondent No.12. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) The only dispute in the present petition is as to whether meeting for `No Confidence Motion’ can be convened C.W.P.No. 17943 of 2010 without proper service of notice under Section 19(2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no notice has ever been served on the petitioner for convening the meeting for `No Confidence Motion’. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 11 has placed on record the alleged notice of meeting dated 09.08.2010, as well as, alleged report regarding service of notice dated 11.08.2010. From the perusal of the report, it is revealed that no notice was ever received by the petitioner in person. It has been reported that Sarpanch has allegedly refused to accept the notice, however, no affixation of notice was done in some conspicuous part of the residence. In the opinion of this Court, service of the summons of the alleged meeting for `No Confidence Motion’ is not valid. Moreover, even otherwise if service of notice is accepted to be effected through refusal on 11.08.2010, then also meeting convened on 18.08.2010 cannot be said to be valid meeting. Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in 2006 (1) P.L.R. 290, has held that in view of Section 9 of General Clauses Act, while counting the period of notice under Section 19(2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, first day of the notice and last day of the notice have to be excluded. As per the dictum of the Division Bench (supra), 11.08.2010 and 18.08.2010 have to 2 C.W.P.No. 17943 of 2010 be excluded. After excluding 11.08.2010 and 18.08.2010, notice is short of the period required under Section 19(2) of the Act. In view of the above, meeting held on 18.08.2010 stands vitiated. In view of the above, impugned resolution is quashed. Present petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to issue fresh notice in accordance with law and to hold fresh meeting for `No Confidence Motion’ in accordance with law. It is also observed that meetinge dated 18.08.2010 shall not be construed as any meeting. November 15, 2010 (Alok Singh) vkd Judge 3