LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concisely, the relevant facts, which are essential to be mentioned 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 held on 26.05.2008, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Tolewal, Block Malerkotla, District Sangrur, in view the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Subsequently, having secured the 2/3rd majority, he was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of the village. He has been performing his duties sincerely, diligently, for welfare and development of the village. There was no complaint of any sort against his work and conduct.

(2.) The petitioner claimed that in the year 2010, Panches-Veer Singh and others (respondent Nos. 5 to 7) started creating hurdle in the smooth functioning and did not allow him to carry on the development works in the village, despite receipt of grants from the State Government. They refused to attend the meetings. The Gram Panchayat passed the resolution (Annexure P-1) in this respect. Petitioner made a complaint (Annexure P-2) against them to the Director, Civil Writ Petition No. 20190 of 2010 2 Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (respondent No. 2) (for brevity "the Director"). They were found guilty for not attending the meetings, by means of report dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). It was explained that Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No. No. 4) (for short "the BDPO") issued a notice dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-4) at the instance of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and directed all the panchayat members to attend the meeting on 14.06.2010 in his office. The petitioner as well as one Panch Harbans Singh attended the meeting, but respondent Nos. 5 to 7 did not attend it. No action was taken against them by respondent No. 1. The BDPO was again stated to have issued another notice dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-7) for holding the meeting on 09.09.2010 at the instance of respondent Nos. 5 to 7. As the petitioner was not present in his house, therefore the notice was handed over to his son on 06.09.2010 purported to have been issued on 01.09.2010. However, the meeting scheduled to be held on 09.09.2010 was adjourned.

(3.) The case of the petitioner further proceeds that again notice dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-8) was issued by the BDPO to convene the meeting on 23.09.2010 for considering the resolution of 'No Confidence motion' against the petitioner. On 23.09.2010, the meeting was convened and 'No Confidence Motion' (Annexure P-9) was stated to have illegally been passed by show of hands instead of secret ballot papers, which was stated to be illegal and against the statutory provisions of the Act.