SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure P-15) by which the respondent no.6 has been reinstated as Sarpanch. Prior thereto an action had been taken against the said respondent and he had been withheld from operating as Sarpanch in view of the provisions of Section 5(2) of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegation against him was that he had failed to hold two consecutive meetings of Gram Sabha and in accordance with provisions of Section 5(2), he invites an automatic cessation from holding of office of Sarpanch. The petitioner is the complainant and is a Panch of the village upon whose initiation the said order was passed.

(2.) THE facts of the case reveal that respondent no.6 had in fact entered upon the office of Sarpanch in July, 2008. Thereafter, a meeting was convened by him in December, 2008, since the first meeting of June, 2008 (after Hari crop) had elapsed. In July, 2009 he intended to hold another meeting but that was objected to by petitioner and other panchs because scheduled period of holding such meeting was June, 2009 and which had elapsed and consequently, the meeting could not be held. Plea was taken that two consecutive meetings were not held by respondent no.6. Therefore, he is considered to have ceased to be functional as Sarpanch which plea was initially accepted by the DDPO but in appeal filed by respondent no.6 before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat the same was accepted by virtue of the impugned order which is the cause of grievance of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that the meeting of December, 2008 was not a proper meeting and similarly, subsequent meeting of July, 2009 was never held and this amounts to a default on the part of respondent no.6 who did not hold two consecutive meetings of the Gram Sabha and thus cessation was justified and the order of the Deputy Director was not in accordance with law.