CWP No.15622 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 15622 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15 - 11 - 2010 Gurdeep Kaur ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Jasmail Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.A.S.Sivia, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 11. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition a prayer has been made that proceedings dated 17.8.2010, Annexure P2, and 25.8.2010, Annexure P3, be quashed. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Goneana on 15.7.2008. According to the petitioner, the post of Sarpanch was reserved for a woman of Scheduled Caste category. It is an admitted case of the parties that there are 9 members of the Gram Panchayat including the petitioner-Sarpanch. It is also admitted that 7 members of the CWP No.15622 of 2010 [2] Panchayat has voted against the petitioner, therefore, `No Confidence Motion' was passed. The only grievance of the petitioner is that notice regarding holding of the meeting was not served upon her and, therefore, the proceedings of the meeting held in her absence be set aside. Counsel for the State has submitted that due service was effected upon the petitioner but she refused to accept the notice. Hence, the refusal is to be construed as a valid service of the notice. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that to allay any apprehension of not a valid service, fresh meeting of the Gram Panchayat can be held. A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.No.1324 of 2010, titled as, `Ravinder Singh Sarpanch v. State of Punjab', decided on 12.10.2010 has held that in case in the first meeting `No Confidence Motion' is passed or deferred, it will not affect the validity of the subsequent meeting in case `No Confidence Motion' is again passed and proviso to Section 19(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 shall not operate. It will be apposite to reproduce following portion of the judgment rendered in Ravinder Singh's case (supra):- “.........Infact, the learned Single Judge has meticulously followed the mandate of Section 19 of the Act by giving seven clear days' notice. The proviso clearly states that the motion must be lost before a bar of two years comes into play. Infact, the motion was carried, but the decision was set aside on the ground of seven clear days' notice was not given. Nevertheless, a direction was given to hold fresh meeting after seven clear days' notice. In our view, the motion which though carried without seven clear days' notice cannot be said to have been lost so as CWP No.15622 of 2010 [3] to attract the bar of two years......” Since counsel for the respondents have agreed that the fresh meeting be held, it is ordered that respondent No.2 – Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Muktsar shall issue a fresh 7 days clear notice excluding the date of notice and the date of meeting upon all members of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.2 – Block Development and Panchayat Officer is present in Court and he has stated that meeting of the Gram Panchayat to again put the `No Confidence Motion' to vote shall be held on 26.11.2010 at 10.00 A.M. in the office of Gram Sabha. The requirement of the service has been satisfied qua the petitioner-Sarpanch and respondents No.4 to 11. Remaining respondent/respondents, if any, shall be served by respondent No.2. In view of the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 15, 2010. JUDGE RC