Balwinder Kaur Sarpanch vs State of Punjab and others

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing notices dated 17.9.2010, 24.9.2010 and 4.10.2010 to

convene meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion'' on 24.9.2010, 1.10.2010 and 6.10.2010. Petitioner is also assailing meeting dated

6.10.2010 as well as recommendation/letter dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent No. 4 has recommended to respondent No.

3 to accept ''No Confidence Motion'' dated 24.9.2010 and election dated 30.11.2010 whereby respondent No. 6 was elected as new Sarpanch

in place of the petitioner. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mahadev Kalan,

Block Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, in the year 2008. Respondents No. 5 to 7 moved an application to respondent No. 4 on

10.9.2010 requesting to convene meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion'' against the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 issued notice dated

17.9.2010 to convene meeting for 24.9.2010 to discuss ''No Confidence Motion''. On 24.9.2010 petitioner was not present, therefore, meeting

was adjourned for 1.10.2010. Again second notice dated 24.9.2010 was issued to convene meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion'' against

the petitioner on 1.10.2010. Again notice dated 4.10.2010 was issued to convene meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion'' on 6.10.2010. On

6.10.2010, out of five Panches three supported ''No Confidence Motion'', therefore, ''No Confidence Motion'' failed. On 16.11.2010 respondent

No. 4 has sent one letter to respondent No. 3 saying four Panches have made statement on 24.9.2010 in favour of ''No Confidence Motion'',

therefore, ''No Confidence Motion'' against the Sarpanch stood passed. Thereafter on 30.11.2010 a meeting was called to elect new Sarpanch

wherein respondent No. 6, Sukhjinder Singh, was declared elected as Sarpanch.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

In view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mohinder Khan v. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others,

CWP No. 17943 of 2010 decided on 15.11.2010, as per Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, seven days'' dear notice is required to

convene meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion'' and for the purpose of counting clear seven days, date of notice and date of meeting shall be

excluded, therefore, first notice dated 17.9.2010 to convene meeting dated 24.9.2010 was short of seven days, therefore, meeting dated

24.9.2010 would not be legal. Moreover, Annexure P-3 would reveal that on 24.9.2010 no meeting was held and it was adjourned for

1.10.2010. Again on 1.10.2010 meeting was adjourned. Perusal of Annexure P-5 would reveal that again meeting was convened for 6.10.2010

vide notice dated 4.10.2010. In the meeting held on 6.10.2010, three Panches out of five supported ''No Confidence Motion'', therefore, ''No

Confidence Motion'' dated 6.10.2010 was not accepted. Moreover, as per Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohinder Ram v.

Hans Raj & Ors., LPA No, 138 of 2011 decided on 29.4.2011, three out of five Panches do not constitute 2/3rd majority which is sine quo non

for passing the ''No Confidence Motion''.

District Development and Panchayat Officer, respondent No. 3, vide Annexure P-8 has written to respondent No. 4, Block Development and

Panchayat Officer, that on 24.9.2010 majority of 2/3rd Panches had already passed the resolution, therefore, subsequent meetings were not called

for. Having received letter dated 3.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) respondent No. 4 has issued Annexure P-9 dated 16.11.2010 saying that on

24.9.2010 four Panches have made statement in support of the ''No Confidence Motion'', therefore, ''No Confidence Motion'' stood passed

against the Sarpanch on 24.9.2010.

Record reveals that meeting dated 24.9.2010 was adjourned by respondent No. 4 himself vide Annexure P-3, therefore, there seems to be no

reason to record statement of four Panches in support of ''No Confidence Motion'' on 24.9.2010. Entire story seems to be cooked up. It was not

open to respondents No. 3 and 4 to say that on 24.9.2010 ''No Confidence Motion'' stood passed in view of the statements of four Panches

recorded by respondent No. 4. Action of respondent No. 4 is unwarranted; at one place he is adjourning the meeting and yet at another place he

is recording the statement. Moreover, even otherwise meeting dated 24.9.2010 would not be valid for want of seven clear days'' notice, therefore,

even if alleged statements of four Panches were recorded, no valid resolution can be said having been passed.

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab, as well as Mr. A.S. Manaise, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.

5 to 7 have fairly stated that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohinder Khan (supra), meeting dated 24.9.2010 cannot be said

to be valid one for want of seven days'' clear notice. Both of them have fairly stated that once meeting dated 24.9.2010 was adjourned by

respondent No. 4 himself, it was not open to respondent No. 4 to record alleged statements of four Panches on 24.9.2010. Learned counsel for

the respondents have no objection if petition is allowed with liberty to convene fresh meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion''.

Admittedly, request was sent to convene the meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion'' prior to the amendment in Section 19, therefore, any

request or application moved prior to the amendment in Section 19 of the Act shall be dealt with in accordance with the then prevailing law in view

of Section 6(c) & (d) of the General Clauses Act.

In the opinion of this Court, ''No Confidence Motion'' cannot be moved within next two years if earlier ''No Confidence Motion'' is lost. In the

present case, ''No Confidence Motion'' is hereby held illegal, therefore, fresh legal notice can be issued and proviso has no application in the

present case. In view of the statement made by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, as well as counsel for respondents No. 5 to 7

present petition is allowed. However, respondents shall be at liberty to issue fresh notice to convene meeting to discuss ''No Confidence Motion''.