Civil Writ Petition No.18426 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18426 of 2010 Date of Decision:04.05.2011 Sarbjeet Singh, Sarpanch ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 6. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election held in the month of June, 2008, five persons were elected as the Members Panchayat. Thereafter, petitioner-Sarbjeet Singh was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Harkrishan Vihar, District Ludhiana, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The petitioner claimed that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No.3(for brevity “the BDPO”) issued a notice dated 15.09.2010(Annexure P-1), to convene a meeting, to consider the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' under Section 19(since omitted) of the Act, scheduled to be held on 01.10.2010 in the Block office, instead of Gram Sabha as required under Civil Writ Petition No.18426 of 2010 2 Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner showed his inability to attend the meeting on account of his ill health, as he was advised bed rest by the doctor from 30.09.2010 to 06.10.2010 and he informed the BDPO, accordingly, along with the medical certificate(Annexure P-3). He(BDPO) did not consider the request of the petitioner and allowed the three Panches, out of five , to pass the resolution (Annexure P-2) of 'No Confidence Motion' in an illegal and arbitrary manner, removing him(petitioner) from the post of Sarpanch. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2), inter alia, pleading that the impugned resolution was passed only by three members(respondent Nos.4 to 6) out of total five Panches, which is less than statutorily required 2/3rd majority. Thus, the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2) was stated not only arbitrary and illegal, but against the statutory provisions of Section 19 of the Act as well. On the basis aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2), in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' was rightly passed by three members out of total five Panches, which was stated to be legal and in accordance with law. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. What is not disputed here is that Section 19(since omitted) of the Act Civil Writ Petition No.18426 of 2010 3 earlier regulated the provisions of passing the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch in this respect, which postulated that an application regarding intention to move a motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch be made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer by a majority of Panches. Moreover, proviso to this Section further posits 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. Sequelly, Sub-Section(3) of Section 19 of the Act envisaged that a two-third majority of the total number of Panches holding office for the time being, is required to pass 'No Confidence Motion'. 7. A conjoint reading of these provisions would reveal that the application of 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch, cannot legally be made, unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Sarpanch has assumed his office and the resolution is carried out by a 2/3rd majority of total number of Panches holding office for the time being. 8. As is evident from the record that, only three Panches(respondent Nos.4 to 6) out of total five Panches were present in the meeting, held on 01.10.2010, when the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2) of 'No Confidence Motion' was passed, against the petitioner. Such resolution was held to be not validly passed by 2/3rd majority, as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.138 of 2011(O&M) titled as Mohinder Ram Versus Hans Raj and others, decided on 29.04.2011 in this regard. 9. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. 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(earlier dealing with the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion'), was enforced and made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010. Civil Writ Petition No.18426 of 2010 4 10. Meaning thereby, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act were not on the statute book, when the impugned resolution dated 01.10.2010(Annexure P-2) was passed, which was contrary to the statutory provisions and is liable to be quashed as well. 11. Thus, seen from any angle, the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2) of 'No Confidence Motion' cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned Resolution (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside in this context. Needless to mention here that the natural consequences would follow accordingly. May 04, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE