BALJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election of Gram Panchayat village Patti Chhaurian, Block Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur was held on 26.05.2008. It appears that respondent No. 2 issued letter on 19.11.2010, calling upon the members of the Panchayat to attend the meeting in his office on 29.11.2010 for discussing the 'No Confidence Motion'. It is alleged that this meeting was fixed without issuing any proper notice. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 20861 of 2010 on 26.11.2010. The writ petition was heard and the judgment reserved. Before the judgment could be pronounced, the Punjab Government issued ordinance called Punjab Panchayati Raj Amendment Ordinance, 2010 on 14.12.2010 deleting Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'). This Section provided for removal of Sarpanch by passing 2/3 rd motion of members of Gram Panchayat. This Section was omittedCivil Writ Petition No. 18462 of 2011 -2- through this ordinance. The meeting, however, was held on 29.11.2010 and No Confidence Motion was favoured by 3 panches out of 5 and it was opposed by two panches. It is alleged that motion, thus, was not supported by 2/3 rd majority as is required under Section 19 of the Act. However, due to deletion of Section 19 of the Act, the writ petition, which the petitioner had filed on 26.11.2010, was rendered infructuous. Still, the corrigendum was published by the Punjab Government deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of Sarpanches. This order has now been challenged through the present petition on the ground that the prescribed 'No Confidence Motion' has not been carried by requisite 2/3 rd members of Gram Panchayat and, thus, the same would be illegal.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner by making reference to the case of Mohinder Khan Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, CWP No. 17943 of 2010 decided on 15.11.2010 had argued that 3 out of 5 members would not constitute 2/3 rd majority. The operation and effect of Annexure P-3 was, accordingly, stayed on 29.09.2011.

(3.) Reply on behalf on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed. It is stated that the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the list of Sarpanches only after majority of Panches had given application in writing to Block Development of Panchayat Officer, Dasuya regarding their intention for 'No Confidence Motion' which was passed against the petitioner. It is stated that 'No Confidence Motion' was carried in meeting dated 29.11.2010. The Civil Writ Petition No. 18462 of 2011 -3- resolution was, accordingly, sent to District Development and Panchayat Officer, who in turn approved and forwarded the same to the Director. The Director, thereafter, had granted approval for notifying the same. It is stated that the judgment in the case of Mohinder Khan is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said case dealt with service of summons for 'No Confidence Motion' and further calling a valid meeting for carrying out 'No Confidence Motion'. The facts, in this case, are stated to be different from the facts of the present case. The fact that assertion made by the petitioner that out of five, three had supported the 'No Confidence Motion', is not denied. It is also pleaded that two members had opposed the No Confidence Motion.