Allowed

Gurbanta Singh v. Financial Commissioner & Secr.to Govt. etc. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2011CWP/20620/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a no-confidence motion resolution passed against him as Sarpanch. The Court held that with government instructions staying further action and Section 19 of the Act being omitted via Ordinance, the resolution could not legally be acted upon and was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned resolution (Annexure P-5) is quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Gurbanta Singh Vs Financial Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 20620 of 2010

¶2

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Date of decision: February 4,2011

Gurbanta Singh

..Petitioner.

Versus

Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Punjab and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. A.P.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶13

Mr. Ravinder Singh,Advocate for respondent No.5

¶14

Mr. S.P.S.Tinna, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶15

Mr. Manish Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 to 12.

¶16

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J .(Oral)

¶17

The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that in the wake of elections, the petitioner Gurbanta Singh, was declared elected as Member of Gram Panchayat of village Dalmir Khera, Block Khuian Sarvar, District Ferozepur, vide resolution dated 26.5.2008 (Annexure P-1), in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Subsequently, he was elected as a Sarpanch of the village in the meeting held on 21.7.2008 by way of Form XI (Annexure P-2).

¶18

The petitioner claimed that he has been performing his duty honestly, faithfully and in the interest of development of the village. Paramjit Kaur wife of Gursahib Singh (respondent No.7), who was previous Sarpanch of the village, belongs to Congress Party and is very close to Shri Sunil Kumar Jakhar, MLA (respondent No.6). She has been trying to grab the post of Sarpanch by one way or

¶19

CWP No. 20620 of 2010 2

¶20

the other as she was not happy with the smooth functioning of the petitioner (Sarpanch). She hatched a conspiracy with other members and moved an undated application (Annexure P-3). In pursuance thereof, Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.3) (for brevity, “the BDPO”), issued notice dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure P-4) to convene the meeting scheduled to be held on 19.10.2010. Although, the resolution of “No Confidence Motion” (Annexure P-5) was stated to have been passed against the petitioner in the meeting held on 19.10.2010, but no further action was taken on this resolution.

¶21

Meanwhile, Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayats (respondent No.1) issued instructions/letter (Annexure P-7) to the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats and copy was forwarded to all the BDPOs. In pursuance of the instructions dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure P-7), the District Development and Panchayat Officers (for short,” the DDPO”) issued further direction dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure P-8) to all the BDPOs not to take any action on the resolutions of “No Confidence Motion” in this regard.

¶22

The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned resolution (Ananexure P-5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia pleading that in view of the order/instructions of the Government (Annexure P-7) and (Annexure P-8), petitioner cannot be removed from the post of Sarpanch, by virtue of impugned resolution (Annexure P-5) in this respect.

¶23

Moreover, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has moved an application bearing C.M.No.1665 of 2011, to produce the copy of the The Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ordinance, 2010”) dated 14.12.2010, (Annexure P-11) on record by means of which, Section 19 of the Act was omitted.

¶24

CWP No. 20620 of 2010

¶25

¶26

The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 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 case set up by the contesting respondent in brief, in sofar as, was that in the wake of complaint, “No Confidence Motion” (Annexure P-5) was rightly passed against the petitioner on the basis of majority. However, they have admitted the factum of issuance of the instructions (Annexure P-7) and (Annexure P-8). It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and relevant provisions of the Act with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶28

As is evident from the record, that although the resolution of “No Confidence Motion” was stated to have been passed against the petitioner in the meeting held on 19.10.2010, but no further action was taken by the respondents in this direction. It is not a matter of dispute that the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayats issued instructions dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure P-7), which in substance are as under:-

¶29

“Sub: Regarding amendment to the provisions of Section 19 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

¶30

On the subject noted above and u/s 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Chief Minister, Punjab has given his approval regarding amendment of No Confidence motion against the Sarpanches and in the near future, an ordinance is being issued to amend the said provisions of law.

¶31

Therefore, you are directed that for the time being and till further orders, no action be taken on the proposal of No Confidence Motion pending consideration.

¶32

CWP No. 20620 of 2010

¶33

¶34

This may be treated as most urgent. ”

¶35

Sequelly, in pursuance of instructions (Annexure P-7), the DDPO, Ferozepur issued instructions dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure P8) to all the BDPOs of District Ferozepur, which are as under:-

¶36

“Regarding the subject noted above and with reference to the letter through Secretary, Punjab Government of Punjab and Rural Development and Panchayats Department, a copy of which has been received along with this letter and it is directed that the directions issued by the Government be complied with in toto and for the time being till further orders, no action on the resolution of No Confidence passed by the respective Panchayats be taken.”

¶37

Not only that, what is not disputed here is that Section 19 of the Act which earlier deals with the removal of Sarpanch on the basis of “No Confidence Motion” has already been omitted by the State of Punjab, by medium of the Ordinance (Annexure P-11). Therefore, once the Government issued instructions (Annexure P-7) and (Annexure P-8) that no action on the resolution of no confidence motion was to be taken and issuance of Ordinance dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-11), omitting Section 19 of the Act, then to me, no action can legally be taken on the resolution (Annexure P-5), which deserves to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶38

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted with costs. Consequently, the impugned resolution (Annexure P-5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto are hereby set aside in this relevant connection.

Gurbanta Singh v. Financial Commissioner & Secr.to Govt. etc. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbanta Singh v. Financial Commissioner & Secr.to Govt. etc. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Singh Vs Amar Kaur & Ors.

Jai Pal Vs State of Haryana

Executive Engg. Hseb & Ors. Vs Polc Hissar & Anr.

Vinod Chander Gupta Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Karnail Singh Sidhu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.