Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 907
2011 (3) RCR(Civ) 64
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
Lal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
C.W.P No. 20190 of 2010
Decided on: 29.03.2011
Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
The main legal point established is that the statutory provisions regarding the removal of a Sarpanch must be strictly adhered to, including the requirement for 'seven clear days' notice for a meeting to consider a 'No Confidence Motion'. Additionally, the formalities for the removal of a Sarpanch must be completed as per the law.
Headnote:
PANCHAYAT ELECTION - REMOVAL OF SARPANCH - The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 19
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, elected as Sarpanch, challenged a resolution for a 'No Confidence Motion' passed against him, citing violation of statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned resolution was illegal and arbitrary due to the violation of the statutory provisions of the Act.
Issues: Violation of statutory provisions, legality of the 'No Confidence Motion' resolution
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice for the meeting did not comply with the requirement of 'seven clear days' notice as mandated by Section 19(2) of the Act, rendering the resolution illegal. The court also emphasized that the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch required additional formalities, which had not been completed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was accepted, and the impugned resolution for the 'No Confidence Motion' was set aside.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) - Concisely, the relevant facts, which are essential to be mentioned for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election held on 26.05.2008, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Tolewal, Block Malerkotla, District Sangrur, in view the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Subsequently, having secured the 2/3rd majority, he was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of the village. He has been performing his duties sincerely, diligently, for welfare and development of the village. There was no complaint of any sort against his work and conduct.
2. The petitioner claimed that in the year 2010, Panches-Veer Singh and others (respondent Nos. 5 to 7) started creating hurdle in the smooth functioning and did not allow him to carry on the development works in the village, despite receipt of grants from the State Government. They refused to attend the meetings. The Gram Panchayat passed the resolution (Annexure P-1) in this respect. Petitioner made a complaint (Annexure P-2) against them to the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (respondent No.2) (for brevity “the Director”). They were found guilty for not attending the meetings, by means of report dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). It was explained that Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.4) (for short “the BDPO”) issued a notice dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-4) at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 7 and directed all the panchayat members to attend the meeting on 14.06.2010 in his office. The petitioner as well as one Panch Harbans Singh attended the meeting, but respondent Nos.5 to 7 did not attend it. No action was taken against them by respondent No.1. The BDPO was again stated to have issued another notice dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-7) for holding the meeting on 09.09.2010 at the instance of respondent Nos. 5 to 7. As the petitioner was not present in his house, therefore the notice was handed over to his son on 06.09.2010 purported to have been issued on 01.09.2010. However, the meeting scheduled to be held on 09.09.2010 was adjourned.
3. The case of the petitioner further proceeds that again notice dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-8) was issued by the BDPO to convene the meeting on 23.09.2010 for considering the resolution of 'No Confidence motion' against the petitioner. On 23.09.2010, the meeting was convened and 'No Confidence Motion' (Annexure P-9) was stated to have illegally been passed by show of hands instead of secret ballot papers, which was stated to be illegal and against the statutory provisions of the Act.
4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P-9), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioner claimed that neither any “seven clear days” notice was issued to him nor any proper meeting was convened on 23.09.2010, but he has illegally been removed from the office of Sarpanch, by way of illegal and arbitrary resolution (Annexure P-9). On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned resolution (Annexure P-9), in the manner indicated here-in-above.
6. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. The private respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed their joint written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The impugned resolution (Annexure P-9) was stated to have been passed on their complaint, as per the provisions of the Act. It will not be out of place to mention here that the co
