Civil Writ Petition No.980 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.980 of 2011 Date of Decision:03.05.2011 Bakshish Singh, Sarpanch ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 10. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election, petitioner-Bakshish Singh, was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Togawal, District Sangrur, 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.4(for brevity “the BDPO”) issued notice dated 21.09.2010 (Annexure P-1), for convening the meeting, scheduled to be held on 29.09.2010 in his office, but no meeting was held on that day. The BDPO was stated to have again convened the meeting on 04.10.2010, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and illegally passed 'No Confidence Motion', removing him(petitioner) from the post of Sarpanch, by virtue of impugned resolution dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). Civil Writ Petition No.980 of 2011 2 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the ground that the same is not only arbitrary and illegal, but against the statutory provisions of Section 19 of the Act(since omitted) as well. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought to challenge the impugned resolution (Annexure P-2), in the manner described here-in-above. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. The private respondent Nos.5 to 10 filed their joint written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The private respondents have denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is clear, that Section 19(since omitted) of the Act regulated the provisions of passing of No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch in this relevant connection. Section 19(2) of the Act postulated that The Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall, within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of application under sub-section(1), convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat by giving seven clear days in notice, for discussing and taking decision on the no-confidence motion. In this manner, “seven clear days” notice was legally required to be issued to the Panches to participate in the meeting to consider the “no confidence motion”. In addition to it, 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. 7. It means, in the instant case, the meeting scheduled to be held on Civil Writ Petition No.980 of 2011 3 29.09.2010 was adjourned to 04.10.2010, without issuing “seven clear days” notice. In other words, the mandatory ingredients/conditions enumerated in Section 19 of the Act were to be complied with by the respondents, before passing the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2), which are totally lacking in the present case. Therefore, the impugned resolution deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.23113 of 2010 titled as M alook Singh Versus State of Punjab and others , decided on 18.04.2011 in this regard. 8. Not only that, 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, which earlier regulated the procedure of passing 'No Confidence Motion', was enforced and made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010. 9. Meaning thereby, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act were not on the statute book, when the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2) was passed on 04.10.2010, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be quashed in this respect. Therefore, the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2) is not only illegal and arbitrary, but against the statutory provisions of the Act as well. 10. Faced with the situation, the parties are ad idem that in view of the provisions of the amended Act, omitting the provisions of Section 19 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010, the impugned resolution(Annexure P-2) deserves to be set aside. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned Resolution dated 04.10.2010(Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside, in the obtaining circumstances of the case Needless to mention here that the natural consequences would follow accordingly. May 03, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE