Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh vs Paramjit Kaur & Others on 29 August, 2011
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.129 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.8.2011
Harpal Singh
-----Appellant
Vs.
Paramjit Kaur & others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge setting aside No Confidence Motion passed against the writ petitioner-respondent No.1.
2. Respondent No.1 was elected to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rajindrapuri, Block Malerkotla-1, District Sangrur in August 2008. Majority of the members of the Panchayat moved No Confidence Motion and a meeting was convened to consider the same. Respondent No.1 filed CWP No.16964 of 2010 with a grievance that 7 days clear notice had not been issued, as required. Accordingly, fresh notice for clear 7 L.P.A. No.129 of 2011 2 days notice was directed to be issued and the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, meeting was held on 1.10.2010 and No Confidence Motion was passed. Respondent No.1 challenged the same on the ground that 7 days clear notice had not been given. Learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the members who issued notice of No Confidence Motion, who were not impleaded as parties, allowed the writ petition following DB judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2006(1) PLR 290, laying down that 7 days clear notice had to be calculated after excluding the date of notice and the date of meeting.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that factually 7 days clear notice had been duly served. Notice was served on 24.9.2010 and meeting was held on 1.10.2010 after seven days. Alternatively, it is submitted that respondent No.1 was present in the meeting, as noted in the resolution and out of the seven panches, six panches passed the resolution against him. The respondent did not raise any objection and is, thus, deemed to have waived objection of seven days' notice. Reliance has been placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre (2004) 8 SC 229, Badriprasad Varma v. Surat Municipal Corpn. (2008) 12 SCC 401, Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh & anr. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 5 and Lachoo Mal L.P.A. No.129 of 2011 3 v. Radhey Shyam AIR 1971 SC 2213 to submit that objection to notice having not been raised, the writ petitioner should be deemed to have waived the objection.
5. It is clear that respondent No.1 appeared in pursuance of the notice and participated in the meeting without any objection. She is, thus, deemed to have waived the requirement of 7 days clear notice. There was substantial compliance of the statutory requirement. No prejudice was caused to her. As regards the judgment in Mohinder Singh, the issue involved therein was as to how 7 days are to be calculated. Referring to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it was held that first and last day on which notice was issued were to be excluded. The Court in that case was not concerned with the waiver. The said judgment is, thus, distinguishable.
6. In view of above, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
August 29, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR
MITTAL )
ashwani JUDGE