IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION :
18. 12.2012 Vaid Singh …. APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others …. RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present : Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. *** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No.12198 of 2011 filed by Janak Singh Sarpanch (respondent No.6 herein) was allowed and the resolution of passing of `no confidence motion' against him was set aside.
2. Undisputedly, in the present case, Gram Panchayat of village Mehlan, Block Sunam, District Sangrur, consists of 11 members. Respondent No.6 was elected its Sarpanch on 13.9.2008. Some of the members of the Gram Panchayat were not satisfied with the working of the Sarpanch. On 24.6.2010, 7 members of the Panchayat made an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sunam, intending to move LPA No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) -2- a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch. Since the proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') (as it existed at that time) provided that `no such application shall be made unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Sarpanch assumed his office', the Block Development and Panchayat Officer did not entertain that application and advised those 7 members to make such application after the expiry of two years from the date on which respondent No.6 assumed his office. Thereupon, they made fresh application on 14.9.2010 requesting the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to convene a meeting to consider `no confidence motion' against respondent No.6. On the said appliation, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer issued notice dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) to all the members/Panches of the Gram Panchayat. As per the said notice, the meeting was to be held on 22.9.2010 at 10.00 AM in Block Office, Sunam.
3. On 22.9.2010, 7 members/Panches came present in the meeting. 4 members, including the Sarpanch (respondent No.6), were absent. Vide resolution dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-2), all the 7 members, who were present in the meeting, carried the `no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch. Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Act (which has not been omitted) required that `If the no-confidence motion is carried in the meeting convened under sub-section (2), which shall be presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, by a two-third majoirty of the total LPA No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) -3- number of Panches holding office for the time being, the Sarpanch shall be deemed to have been removed from his office. Two-third of 11 members of the Gram Panchayat would be 7.33 and the fraction of .33 is to be rounded off and treated as one whole. Since the `no confidence motion' was carried by only 7 members, therefore, it could not be said to have been carried by two-third majority of the total members of the Gram Panchayat. It has already been held in various judgments that 7 members cannot constitute two-third majority of 11 members. In this regard, reference can be made to Shyamapada Ganguly v. Abani Mukharjee, AIR 195.Calcutta 420, S. Shivashankarappa and others v. The Davangere City Municipality, Davangere and others, AIR 197.Karnataka 140, Vijay Kumar Saluja v. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and others, 1991 PLJ 635.Pritam Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 199.Punjab and Haryana 341 and Jardar Khan v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 199.Punjab and Haryana 249.
4. Having become conscious that 7 members could not constitute two-third majority of 11 members, one more member was called later on and his signatures were obtained on the aforesaid resolution, while recording his statement that he was also agreed with the `no confidence motion' carried by 7 members against the Sarpanch. The said proceedings of carrying `no confidence motion' against respondent No.6 in the aforesaid manner was challenged by respondent No.6 by filing the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, and the resolution of passing of LPA No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) -4- `no confidence motion' against him was set aside.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, an Ordinance was issued by the Punjab Government on 14.12.2010, whereby Section 19 of the Act was deleted. Thereupon, a statement was made before the learned Single Judge that in view of the changed circumstances, since name of the Sarpanch was not being de-notified, therefore, the writ petition had become infructuous. Later on, omission of Section 19 of the Act by the aforesaid Ordinance was held to be prospective, i.e. from 21.4.2011, the date of amendment. In Nirbhai Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No.7392 of 2011), decided on 12.5.2011, the Division Bench of this Court held that all the resolutions passed before the said date will be deemed to be valid. In view of this legal position, on the application moved by respondent No.6, the writ petiton was revived and was allowed.
6. A question was raised before the learned Single Judge that once in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, which was attended by 7 members of the Gram Panchayat, the resolution of `no confidence motion' was carried by all the members, which did not constitute two-third majority of the total members, whether the Presiding Officer was justified in obtaining the signatures of one more member subsequently in favour of the resolution. The learned Single Judge answered this quetion in favour of the elected Sarpanch, after coming to the conclusion that once the meeting was over, support of one more member in favour of the said resolution could not have been obtained, and if such method is permitted, it will lead to unfair and LPA No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) -5- unjust consequences and thus violate the statutory requirement of carrying `no confidence motion' by two-third majority of the total members of the Gram Panchayat in the meeting convened for the said purpose.
7. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the appellant (one of the Panches who supported the `no confidence motion') argued that even if one more member came in the meeting on the same day, though after putting the `no confidence motion' to vote, and supported the `no confidence motion', then his vote in support of the `no confidence motion' could not have been ignored. According to the learned counsel, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the intends and purposes of Section 19 of the Act, which provided a right to two-third majority of the total members of the Gram Panchayat to remove the Sarpanch by carrying `no confidence motion'. According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the proceedings conducted in the meeting held on 22.9.2010, which was presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, clearly indicates that on the said date, 8 members of the Gram Panchayat were against the Sarpanch, which clearly is two-third majority of the total members of the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the resolution of `no confidence motion' carried against respondent No.6.
8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and going through the provisions of the Act as well as the proceedings of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 22.9.2010, we do LPA No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) -6- not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Undisputedly, two-third majority of 11 members of the Gram Panchayat would be 7.33. It is also not disputed that the fraction of .33 is to be rounded off and treated as one whole, as has been held by this Court in Vijay Kumar Saluja's case (supra). A perusal of the proceedings of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 22.9.2010, which was annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-2, clearly indicates that on 22.9.2010, only 7 members of the Gram Panchayat came present in the meeting, which was presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, and 4 members did not come present, despite waiting for them for more than half an hour. Thereafter, signatures of all the 7 members, who attended the meeting, were obtained on the proceedings. Then the motion was put to vote. All the 7 members, who were present in the meeting, unanimously raised their hands in favour of the `no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch. The Presiding Officer categorically recorded in the proceedings that 7 members voted in favour of the `no confidence motion'. Thereafter, all those 7 members put their signatures. The meeting was over. Thereafter, it was recorded that one Baldev Singh Panch came in the meeting at about 11 AM and he also wanted to support the `no confidence motion'. Then his signatures were obtained. These facts are undisputed. In our opinion, once the resolution of `no confidence motion' is put to the members of the Gram Panchayat, which is carried out or lost, and the meeting is over. After that, LPA No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) -7- no member of the Gram Panchayat, who earlier did not attend the meeting, can be permitted to cast his/her vote, either in favour or against the motion of no confidence. If this is permitted, then the very purpose and object of carrying a `no confidence motion' in a meeting convened for the said purpose by giving requisite notice of seven clear days to all the members will be defeated. While convening the meeting to consider the `no confidence motion', the Presiding Officer, who shall be the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or an officer not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer authorised by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in this behalf, has to issue written notices to all the members of the Gram Panchayat intimating them the time, date and place of the meeting. In spite of that information, if a member does not come present in such a meeting and the `no confidence motion' is put to vote by the Presiding Officer and when it is carried out or lost, then subsequently no member of the Gram Panchayat, who did not attend the meeting, can be permitted to vote either in favour of or against the `no confidence motion'. For all intends and purposes, once the `no confidence motion' was put to vote and the members present in the meeting exercised their right to vote, then the meeting shall be deemed to be over. Thereafter, no second meeting can be convened for the purpose of carrying out `no confidence motion'. Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act provided that `if the no-confidence motion is lost another such motion shall not be moved against that Sarpanch before the expiry of two years from the LPA No.2113 of 2012 ( O&M ) -8- date of its having been lost'. In the present case, when the `no confidence motion' was put to vote and out of total 11 members of the Gram Panchayat, only 7 members (which undisputedly did not consiste two-third majority of the total members) supported the `no confidence motion', the said motion is deemed to have been lost and thereafter, associating of any member or convening of another meeting for the said purpose again on the same day would be violative to the provisions of Section 19 (3) of the Act. Therefore, the Presiding Officer has committed grave illegality while considering the vote of one more member after recording the proceedings of the meeting and on the basis of that vote, declaring that the resolution of `no confidence motion' was carried out by two-third majority of the total members of the Gram Panchayat. The said resolution, in our opinion, has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge, being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
10. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 18, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE Refer to Reporter