Dismissed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2011CWP/21334/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the refusal to recall a Gram Panchayat meeting resolution aimed at removing a Sarpanch. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, noting the resolution lacked a clear no-confidence motion and that the relevant provision had been omitted by amendment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 14,000 to be recovered from the petitioners and deposited in the Punjab State Legal Services Authority account.

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

CWP No. 21334 of 2010

¶3

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

¶4

Date of decision: February 4,2011

¶5

Sukhdev Singh and others

¶6

..Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG,Punjab for the respondents

¶13

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J .(Oral)

¶14

The contour 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 general Gram Panchayat elections held on 26.5.2008, 11 Panches were elected of Gram Panchayat of village Joga, Block Bhikhi, District Mansa. Thereafter, one Panch Binder Kaur was elected as a Sarpanch, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”).

¶15

The petitioners claimed that as Binder Kaur, Sarpanch was not interested in the development work of the village, therefore, they moved an application dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) to Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.5) (for short, the “BDPO”), to cancel her election. In pursuance thereof, a meeting was convened on 20.10.2010, in which, only resolution (Annexure P-2) was stated to have been passed and no further action was taken on it by the respondents in this regard.

¶16

The petitioners did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition

¶17

CWP No. 21334 of 2010

¶18

¶19

in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act (since omitted).

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition.

¶21

However, the solitary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents are required to re-elect the new Sarpanch under Section 19(3) of the Act in view of resolution (Annexure P2), is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

¶22

As is evident from the record that a meeting was stated to have been convened on 20.10.2010, in which, the resolution (Annexure P-2) was passed to the following effect:-

¶23

“Today, on 20.10.2010, the meeting of Gram Panchayat Joga was held under the chairmanship of BDPO Bhikhi in his office in the evening 3.10 (Three O'clock 10 minutes).

¶24

No-confidence motion was moved against the Sarpanch, by Sukhdev Singh Panch. Against No Confidence Motion, following Panches are present. This resolution is forwarded to the higher officers for further necessary action.

Sd/- Bhajan Singh

Sd/ Mela Singh

Sd/- Beant Singh

Sd/- Amarjit Kaur Panch

¶29

Sd/- Sukhdev Singh Panch

¶30

Sd/- Dharampal Panch

¶31

Sd/- Malkiat Singh Panch.

¶32

The above members are in support of no-confidence motion. Sarpanch and Panches were called for proving majority, but the following members did not come present.

¶33

1. Karampreet Singh, Panch

¶34

2. Harjit Kaur Panch

¶35

3. Smt. Binder Kaur Panch

¶36

CWP No. 21334 of 2010

¶37

¶38

4. Smt. Paramjit Kaur Panch

¶39

Sd/- Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bhikhi.”

¶40

Thus, the bare perusal of the indicated proceedings of resolution, would reveal that no specific resolution of “no confidence ” was actually passed against the elected Sarpanch Binder Kaur. It was only forwarded to the higher authorities for further necessary action. The proceedings are as vague as anything and lack clarity in this context. Unless 'no confidence motion' was legally passed by a two third majority of total number of Panches holding the post for the time being, then in the absence of any specific and clear resolution of 'no confidence motion', the duly elected Sarpanch Binder Kaur, cannot possibly be removed from her office of Sarpanch in this relevant connection.

¶41

There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. What is not disputed here is that the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, relating to the removal of the Sarpanch, on account of 'no confidence motion' has already been omitted by the State of Punjab, by means of the Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010 with effect from 14.12.2010.

¶42

Meaning thereby, once the relevant Section 19 of the Act relatable to the removal of Sarpanch on account of “No Confidence-motion” was not on the statute book, then possibly no direction can be issued to the respondents to comply with the omitted Section 19 of the Act, as prayed for by the petitioners, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶43

Thus, seen from any angle, to me, no direction can either way be issued to the respondents in this relevant connection. As the petitioners have unnecessary dragged the respondents into the present litigation, therefore, to me, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.

¶44

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs of ` 14,000/- (Rs.2000 each), to be recovered from the petitioners and be deposited in the account of Punjab State Legal Services

¶45

CWP No. 21334 of 2010

¶46

¶47

Authority, Chandigarh, by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No.5) in this regard.

¶48

February 4,2011 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) nk JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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