VAID SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 12198 of 2011 filed by Janak Singh Sarpanch (respondent No.6 herein) was allowed and the resolution of passing of 'no confidence motion' against him was set aside.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , in the present case, Gram Panchayat of village Mehlan, Block Sunam, District Sangrur, consists of 11 members. Respondent No.6 was elected its Sarpanch on 13.9.2008. Some of the members of the Gram Panchayat were not satisfied with the working of the Sarpanch. On 24.6.2010, 7 members of the Panchayat made an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sunam, intending to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch. Since the proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (as it existed at that time) provided that 'no such application shall be made unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Sarpanch assumed his office', the Block Development and Panchayat Officer did not entertain that application and advised those 7 members to make such application after the expiry of two years from the date on which respondent No.6 assumed his office. Thereupon, they made fresh application on 14.9.2010 requesting the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to convene a meeting to consider 'no confidence motion' against respondent No.6. On the said appliation, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer issued notice dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) to all the members/Panches of the Gram Panchayat. As per the said notice, the meeting was to be held on 22.9.2010 at 10.00 AM in Block Office, Sunam.

(3.) MEMBERS , including the Sarpanch (respondent No.6), were absent. Vide resolution dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-2), all the 7 members, who were present in the meeting, carried the 'no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch. Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Act (which has now been omitted) required that 'If the no-confidence motion is carried in the meeting convened under sub-section (2), which shall be presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, by a two-third majoirty of the total number of Panches holding office for the time being, the Sarpanch shall be deemed to have been removed from his office. Two-third of 11 members of the Gram Panchayat would be 7.33 and the fraction of .33 is to be rounded off and treated as one whole. Since the 'no confidence motion' was carried by only 7 members, therefore, it could not be said to have been carried by two-third majority of the total members of the Gram Panchayat. It has already been held in various judgments that 7 members cannot constitute two-third majority of 11 members. In this regard, reference can be made to Shyamapada Ganguly v. Abani Mukharjee, AIR 1951 Calcutta 420, S. Shivashankarappa and others v. The Davangere City Municipality, Davangere and others, AIR 1978 Karnataka 140, Vijay Kumar Saluja v. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and others, 1991 PLJ 635, Pritam Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 341 and Jardar Khan v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 249. 4. Having become conscious that 7 members could not constitute two-third majority of 11 members, one more member was called later on and his signatures were obtained on the aforesaid resolution, while recording his statement that he was also agreed with the 'no confidence motion' carried by 7 members against the Sarpanch. The said proceedings of carrying 'no confidence motion' against respondent No.6 in the aforesaid manner was challenged by respondent No.6 by filing the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, and the resolution of passing of 'no confidence motion' against him was set aside.