C.W.P.No.10838 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10838 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 30.11.2011 Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Gurbachan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Madan Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.4. 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 sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat elections, Dalip Singh (respondent No.4) was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Jaimal Singh Wala, Block Sahina, District Barnala, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The petitioner and other Panches moved an application to Block Development & Panchayat Officer (for short “the BDPO”) for convening a meeting to consider the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch, as contemplated under section 19 of the Act. Consequently, a meeting was convened and resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against respondent No.4 on 27.9.2010. The petitioner was stated to have been authorized to act as Sarpanch. 2. During the pendency of 'No Confidence Motion' proceedings, the Governor of Punjab issued Punjab Ordinance No.9 of 2010, by virtue of notification dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P3). Ultimately, the Punjab Legislative C.W.P.No.10838 of 2011 -2- Assembly amended the Act, by way of The Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2011 (Annexure P4) and section 19 of the Act dealing with the no-confidence motion, was omitted. 3. As the name of respondent No.4 was not de-notified and no fresh regular election for the post of Sarpanch was held till 14.12.2010, therefore, he was reinstated on the indicated post of Sarpanch. Consequently, the BDPO directed the authorized Panch (petitioner) to hand over the charge of Gram Panchayat to the elected Sarpanch (respondent No.4), by means of impugned letter dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure P5). 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned letter (Annexure P5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the Sarpanch (respondent No.4) and petitioner was authorized Panch, to perform the duty of Sarpanch, so, the BDPO has illegally directed him (petitioner) to hand over the charge of Gram Panchayat to respondent No.4, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record, that 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the Sarpanch (respondent No.4) on 27.9.2010. It is not a matter of dispute that neither his name was de-notified nor any meeting was convened to elect new Sarpanch till 14.12.2010. During the course of completion of all the formalities, essential for issuance of notification for de-notifying the name of Sarpanch, the Governor of Punjab issued the Punjab Ordinance dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P3). Thereafter, the Punjab Legislative Assembly amended the Act, through the medium of The Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2011 C.W.P.No.10838 of 2011 -3- (Annexure P4) and section 19 of the Act dealing with the no-confidence motion, was omitted. It is now well settled proposition of law that mere passing of resolution of “No Confidence Motion' is not sufficient to debar the elected Sarpanch, unless all the formalities, essential to issue notification to de-notify his name are completed. This matter is no more res integra. 8. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Baljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others (2011-1) PLR 560. Having interpreted the relevant rules of Punjab Panchayat Election (Amendment) Rules, 2008, vis-a-vis section 19 of the Act, it was ruled (paras 13 to 15) as under:- “13. A co-joint reading of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that mere passing of a resolution of No Confidence Motion removing the elected Sarpanches/private respondents and electing new Sarpanches (petitioners) is not sufficient in this regard and status of a Sarpanch cannot legally be conferred on the petitioners, unless and until, the entire contemplated procedure under the Act and Rules, is completed, removal of elected Sarpanches/private respondents is de-notified and election of new Sarpanches (petitioners) are duly notified by the Government in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. 14. An identical question arose in Civil Writ Petition bearing No.22815 of 2010, which came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.), vide order dated 21.12.2010, the operative part of which is as under:- “Counsel for the State has submitted that the State of Punjab has issued an ordinance, called “Punjab Panchayati Raj Amendment Ordinance, 2010 on 14th December, 2010, whereby Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which prescribes removal of a Sarpanch by passing a resolution by 2/3rd majority of the members of Gram Panchayat has been omitted. Counsel for the State has further submitted that in case in pursuance of the resolution (Annexure P-5) no notification has been issued to de-notify the election, the petitioner Sarpanch shall continue to remain in the office. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the statement made by counsel for the State, present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same be dismissed as such. Ordered accordingly.” 15. What is not disputed here is that Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing resolution of No Confidence Motion, has C.W.P.No.10838 of 2011 -4- already been omitted by the State Govt. It is not a matter of dispute that neither the removal of the Sarpanches/private respondents was de-notified nor the elections of newly elected Sarpanches (petitioners) were notified, till the omission of Section 19 of the Act by the State Government. Therefore, the earlier elected Sarpanches/private respondents, will be deemed to continue as Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats of their respective villages. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances and the aforementioned observations are “mutatis mutandis” fully applicable to the present controversy.” 9. Not only that, reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment dated 2.6.2011 rendered by this Court in case “Sukha Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others” in Review Application No.234 of 2011 in CWP No.555 of 2011. Thus, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. Meaning thereby, once respondent No.4 was reinstated on the post of Sarpanch, then the petitioner, who was a Panch, temporarily authorized to act as Sarpanch, has got no right, title or interest to act as Sarpanch. As soon as, the duly elected Sarpanch was reinstated, in pursuance of omission of section 19 of the Act, then, he is entitled to function as Sarpanch. Hence, to me, the BDPO has rightly directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of Gram Panchayat to the elected Sarpanch (respondent No.4). In this manner, the petitioner has no claim over the indicated post of Sarpanch. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 30.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No