NATHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Lohar Ka Kalan in the election held in 1993, It is the case of the petitioner that certain actions that he had taken in favour of the Gram Panchayat had annoyed not only the employees of the Gram Sabha but also its members. Accordingly a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner on 17th October, 1996 on the grounds detailed in Annexure R-1 to the writ petition. On receiving this notice, respondent No. 2 the B. D. P. O. fixed the meeting of the Gram Sabha on 7th November, 1996 to consider the motion of no-confidence. It is further the case of the petitioner that no notice of the meeting was issued to him and when he came to know about the meeting two/three days before the date fixed, he approached respondent No. 2 and requested him to supply a copy of the application moved against him but the same was denied to him. The meeting was held on 7th November, 1997 which was attended by the petitioner and the motion for no-confidence was duly carried, after the opinion of the members of the Gram Sabha had been recorded in the proceeding book and as most of the voters were illiterate, they had thumb marked the' same as it had been passed around by the subordinate offirials, it could not be conclusively said that these officials had recorded the opinion correctly. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, declared the no-confidence motion as carried by majority of 700 votes. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application Ex. P2 to respondent No. 2 asking for a copy of the non-confidence application on 7th November, 1996, but he received a reply dated 12. 11. 19% informing him that a copy would be supplied only after getting clearance of the Director. The petitioner then approached the Director on 14. 11. 1996 and requested for a copy of the aforesaid application but the same was not supplied. The petitioner when left with no remedy, has filed the present writ petition making a prayer that his removal from the office of Sarpanch pursuance to the no-confidence motion passed in the meeting held on 7th November, 1996, be quashed.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued in this case and a reply has also been filed on behalf of the State. In the meantime, a fresh election for the office of Sarpanch has also been held as vide order of this Court dated 4th March, 1997, it was directed that though the election may go on but the result be not declared and it be kept in a sealed cover and sent to this Court. The result has been perused by me now and it transpires that one Nirmal Singh, who is represented by Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, before me today, has been declared elected and a reply has also been filed by him. It is admitted by the respondents that the no-confidence motion was moved on 17th October, 1996 and notice with regard to the meeting fixed for 7th November, 1996 was issued on 13. 10. 1996, and that a copy of the notice was fixed at prominent places in the village. It is also admitted that no copy of the notice was supplied to the petitioner personally but the plea taken is that there was no requirement under the law to do so. It has also been pleaded that as the petitioner had himself attended the meeting and signed' the proceedings book in token of his attendance, no grievance could now be made that no notice had been issued to him.

(3.) AS against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has urged that Section 19 of the Act did not provide for the issuance of a notice to the incumbent Sarpanch personally before a no-confidence motion could be considered, and that as the Act and Rules were silent on the method of voting, the method followed in the present case could not be faulted.