DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following the elections to Gram Panchayat Gajjevas, Block Samana, District Patiala in June, 2008, nine Panches were elected. The Panches in turn elected the petitioner as Sarpanch. Six panches made an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Samana, District Sangrur (for short "the BDPO") for convening a meeting under Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act") for consideration of passing a no confidence motion against the petitioner. The notice was issued by the BDPO on 13.8.2010 for meeting to be held on 19.8.2010. The notice period laid down under Section 19 of the Act demands 7 clear days gestation period. It is not disputed that the notice was short by two days. The meeting was held on 19.8.2010 chaired by the BDPO. The motion was carried on the basis of the application presented by 6 out of 9 Panches. There was, therefore, 2/3rd majority against the petitioner. The motion was carried. The petitioner was removed as Sarpanch. The present petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) and the resolution dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-2). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book with their assistance.

(2.) Mr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that violation of the procedure laid down under Section 19 of the Act is the main plank of attack by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that 7 days clear notice under Section 19(2) of the Act is meaningful inasmuch as gestation period has been prescribed for the Panches to discuss and take decision on the no-confidence motion. He submits that the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act are salutary, mandatory and normally, a motion of no-confidence carried in breach of Section 19(2) of the Act ought to be nullified. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies on a number of judgments which are referred to here in below.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 submits that there is no dispute with regard to the condition of 7 days clear notice period envisaged under Section 19(2) of the Act, however, there is an exception carved out by two Division Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Harpal Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and others (LPA No. 129 of 2011 decided on 29.8.2011) and Raj Kaur Panch v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 1387 of 2011 and another connected LPA No. 1126 of 2011 decided on 15.12.2011). In the case of Harpal Singh , the Division Bench had a matter before it in which notice was served on 24.9.2010 and meeting was held on 1.10.2010. The method of calculation of seven days has been clarified by another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others,2006 1 PunLJ 290 laying down that 7 days clear notice has to be calculated after excluding the date of notice and the date of meeting. In the case of Harpal Singh, , the factual position before the Court was that there was clear 7 days notice period. The Division Bench, while relying on the case of Mohinder Singh , made an exception that where the Sarpanch has notice of the meeting, knowledge of the proposed no-confidence motion and yet participates in the meeting, he would be deemed to have waived objection of 7 days notice period. The Division Bench in turn relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion:-