IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Paramjeet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-21082-2021
Decided On : 31-03-2022
Gram Panchayat - Non-cooperation of Panches - Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 24
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, elected as Sarpanch, alleged non-cooperation from respondents affecting development works. Resolutions were passed but not implemented. The court examined whether the resolutions had to be implemented and if non-implementation interfered with the elected body's functioning.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the quorum was not complete during the meetings where resolutions were passed, rendering the resolutions illegal. As the quorum was not complete, the prayer of the petitioner could not be granted. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the resolutions had to be implemented and if non-implementation interfered with the functioning of the elected body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 24 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which specifies the quorum requirements for Gram Panchayat meetings. It concluded that as the quorum was not complete, the resolutions could not be termed legal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. - Judgment was reserved in this case on 10.03.2022 and learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to submit written arguments. However, the same has not been done till today and, thus, order is being passed on the basis of the pleadings and submissions made in Court.
2. Elections to various Gram Panchayats were held in December 2018 and the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. In January 2019, the Gram Panchayat was constituted. The Gram Panchayat has seven Panches and a Sarpanch. According to the petitioner, respondents No. 5 to 8 are not cooperating with the functioning of the Gram Panchayat under the influence of respondent No. 9. Infact, the said respondent has been pressurizing the petitioner to join his political party. On account of the non-cooperative attitude of respondents No. 5 to 8, the development works in the Gram Panchayat area have been adversely affected and, thus, a request dated 18.12.2020 was made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to permit the Gram Panchayat to carry out development works. A similar request was reiterated on 28.12.2020. Despite the same, vide order dated22.02.2021 a Government official has been appointed for carrying out development works. The said Government official was misutilizing the funds released. Instead of purchasing new material, he was utilizing material purchased earlier and, thus, a complaint dated 22.02.2021 was submitted to the BDPO but no action was taken against the official. Instead, the scope of work was increased by releasing additional grant. On 02.09.2021, Agenda Notice was issued by the petitioner convening a meeting on 10.09.2021 and listing the agenda to be discussed. On 10.09.2021, the meeting was held in the presence of the Sarpanch and three Panches. A resolution was passed to make the passage to the Shamshan Ghat Pakka. Another resolution was passed on 12.09.2021 resolving to make another rasta passing through the village 'Pakka'. Yet, the official respondents did not heed the resolutions. According to the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Sarpanch is entitled to cast a casting vote. This legal provision has been ignored by respondents and, thus, a direction is sought to them to permit the Sarpanch to perform her duties.
3. Although details regarding alleged illegal appointment of a Government Officer to carry out development works have been given, the legality or validity of the said appointment is not being considered as no relief in that regard has been sought.
4. The only issue to be examined is whether the resolutions dated 10.09.2021 and 12.09.2021 had to be implemented by the official respondents and non-implementation of the same is an attempt made by the State machinery to interfere with the functioning of a duly elected body.
5. Section 24 of the Act is reproduced for ready reference :-
"24. Quorums and Procedure (1) The majority of Panches for the time being holding office shall form a quorum and if at the time appointed for the meeting, a quorum is not present -
(a) the presiding authority shall wait for thirty minutes, and if within such period there is no quorum, the presiding authority shall adjourn the meeting to such time on the following day or such future day as he may fix;
(b) similarly, the presiding authority after waiting for thirty minutes adjourn the meeting if, at any time, after it has begun attention is drawn to the want of a quorum and the business which could not be considered at the meeting postponed under clause (a) for want of quorum, shall be brought before and disposed of at the meeting so fixed or at any subsequent adjourned meeting at which there is a quorum.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, at every meeting of the Gram Panchayat, the Sarpanch and in his absence a Panch elected out of the Panches present shall preside for the occasion.
(3) All questions shall, unless otherwise specifically provided, be decided by a majority of vote
The quorum requirements specified in the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, must be met for the legality of resolutions passed in Gram Panchayat meetings.
The appointment of an Administrator can be justified based on the non-cooperation of Panches and the failure of the Gram Panchayat to perform its duty.
Point of law : intention of the Legislature that the effect of expression "the elected member of the Grama Panchayat cease to be member" as used in Section 8(3) is to state that for the purpose of ex....
Constitution of the Gram Panchayat is the paramount objective to be achieved. Since the minimum quorum required to constitute the Gram Panchayat could not be met, despite two consecutive elections an....
The court ruled that mere errors or irregularities in the discharge of duties do not constitute misconduct unless they are detrimental to the institution's prestige or involve willful misconduct.
Voting in no-confidence motions must adhere strictly to prescribed methods, such as secret ballots, without discretion from the Presiding Officer.
The mandatory provisions of notice and quorum in the election process are crucial for ensuring valid democratic practices, and failure to adhere results in the annulment of electoral resolutions.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of addressing the petitioner's legal notice and ensuring compliance with the law in the functioning of the Panchayat.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.