POKHAR DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 4190 of 2011) filed by Sarabjit Singh Sarpanch (respondent No.4 herein) was allowed and the resolution dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P-3) passing `no confidence motion' against him was set aside, on two grounds, firstly, that before convening the meeting on 20.9.2010 for considering the `no confidence motion' against respondent No.4, no seven clear days notice, as required under Section 19 (2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), was given; and secondly, that when the `no confidence motion' was passed, the provision of Section 19 of the Act stood omitted retrospectively with effect from 1.7.2010, therefore, resolution of `no confidence motion' could not have been passed on that day.

(2.) THE instant appeal has been filed by one of the Panches of the Gram Panchayat, who had supported the `no confidence motion' against respondent No.4.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that the notice for convening the meeting on 13.9.2010 to consider the `no confidence motion' against respondent No.4 was issued on 3.9.2010, but on that day, the meeting was not held and the said meeting was convened on 20.9.2010. It has also been admitted that for the said meeting on 20.9.2010, no notice was issued. In view of these admitted facts, in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the meeting held on 20.9.2010, in which the resolution of `no confidence motion' was passed against respondent No.4, was not properly convened by giving seven clear days notice. Therefore, the resolution passed in the said meeting is contrary to the provision of Section 19 of the Act. It has been stated that on 13.9.2010, the meeting could not be held and it was held on 20.9.2010. For the said meeting, no fresh notice giving seven clear days was issued to the members of the Gram Panchayat. In our opinion, once the meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat was scheduled to be convened on a particular date for considering the `no confidence motion', the same could not be adjourned on the date of meeting. If the meeting is to be adjourned for any reason, then prior notice in this regard has to be given to all the members of the Gram Panchayat. In the present case, it was not so done.