MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has laid challenge to 'no confidence motion' which was carried out against him.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected Sarpanch of village Bohra-Bohri, Block Dera Bassi, District Patiala in elections held in June, 2003. According to the averments made in the petition, Gram Sabha Bohra-Bohri at present consists of 195 members as 10 votes were deleted prior to the elections in 2002. The petitioner belongs to Congress Party whereas panches belong to Akali Dal Party and accordingly they had started making false complaints against the petitioner to the authorities which were filed being without any substance. In the year 2005, these panches resorted the method to remove the petitioner by 'no confidence motion' and got the signatures/thumb impressions of 128 members of the Gram Sabha on the pretext of getting grant for development works of Gram Sabha and for getting pension to the members. The said application dated 16.8.2005 was submitted for convening of meeting for 'no confidence motion'. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer convened the meeting of Gram Sabha by issuing notice dated 25.8.2005 for 1.9.2005 on which date the 'no confidence motion' was passed against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments of the petitioners and submitted that under Section 19 of the Act, 2/3rd members of the Gram Sabha can move motion of no confidence against any Sarpanch and according to the respondents, the signatures of 129 members instead of 128 members had been obtained and further out of 195, 13 voters had already expired out of whom death certificates of six members had been attached as Annexures R-1 to R-6 with the reply and even then out of 189 members, the motion moved by 129 members would make more than 2/3rd of the total number as 2/3rd would come to 126. It was further submitted that vide notice dated 25.8.2005, the petitioner was given seven clear days' notice of meeting to be held on 1.9.2005 when on that day, in the presence of 95 voters of Gram Sabha, 90 voters had voted against the petitioner and only five had voted in his favour.