Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pirthi Chand vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 November, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17614 of 2010
Date of decision: 18th November, 2010
Pirthi Chand
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional AG, Punjab
for the respondents.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the resolution dated 17th September, 2010 (Annexure P-2), vide which no- confidence-motion was passed against the petitioner, be set aside, being wrong, illegal, arbitrary and nonest in the eyes of law.
Briefly stated, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Dharamgarh, Block Sunam, District Sangrur on 20th July, 2008. Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), provides that by 2/3rd majority, Panches of a Gram Panchayat can remove the Sarpanch by passing no- confidence-motion against him after completion of two years term. In the present case, the Gram Panchayat consists of nine members. Six members of the Gram Panchayat submitted an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sunam, in which they specifically stated that they have lost faith in Sarpanch of the Village and he should be removed from the office. On receipt of the application, a notice (Annexure P-1) dated 8th September, 2010 was issued and a meeting was convened on 17th September, 2010 at 10.00 a.m., which was attended by all the nine members of Panchayat, including the petitioner- Civil Writ Petition No.17614 of 2010 2 Sarpanch. The notice of no-confidence-motion was put to vote and eight members of the Gram Sabha voted against the petitioner. The petitioner was the only one who voted in his favour. No-confidence-motion was carried.
The proceedings (Annexure P-2), wherein it was recorded that no-confidence-motion has been passed, is assailed in this Court by filing present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in 'Natha Singh v. State of Punjab' 1997(3) PLR 791, wherein a passing observation has been made that in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act, no-confidence- motion should be discussed and a debate should be held. In Natha Singh's case (supra), two arguments were raised. Firstly, that no notice was issued to the outgoing Sarpanch and the meeting was held without issuance of the notice. Secondly, that no debate or discussion was carried. The Court held that since no notice was issued to the Sarpanch, that being an essential ingredient, is sufficient to set aside the proceedings of meeting wherein no-confidence-motion was passed. The second argument raised by the counsel was not gone into by the Court.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
There is no doubt that discussion and debate are two essential parts of a democratic process. A person, against whom no- confidence-motion is brought, ought to be made aware as to why the members have lost faith in him. At the same time, the person who is sought to be removed from office, must get an opportunity to defend and explain his conduct. But this part of discussion and debate cannot overwrite the will of the majority. A Gram Panchayat consists of elected representatives of the people. They have to device their own procedure Civil Writ Petition No.17614 of 2010 3 for passing the resolution. Minutes of the meeting are not noticed in the proceedings book, however, what is the outcome of a meeting is always recorded in the proceedings book. It is a matter of fact that eight members of the Gram Panchayat have voted against the petitioner- Sarpanch. To vote is a conscious decision. For exercising vote, which is to be cast in a Gram Panchayat, no whip is issued. Each member votes according to his own conscience. It is stated that the Act provides seven days' clear period after the notice of no-confidence-motion is issued. Seven days is a long period for the members to reflect upon the merits and demerits regarding functioning of the Sarpanch. Each member of the Gram Panchayat is an elected representative. For a period of seven days, he is in a thoughtful process as to whether the vote is to be cast in favour of the no-confidence-motion or against it. Therefore, once the vote is cast, it necessarily is to be assumed that a decision has been taken in the right earnest. Though the discussion and debate are the essential parts of a democratic process, yet recording of the minutes that discussion and debate was held can only be said to be directory and not mandatory. What is important is the mandate of the elected representatives. Once eight out of the nine members have voted against the Sarpanch, the no- confidence-motion cannot be set aside on the ground that in the proceedings book it has not been recorded that the matter was discussed and a debate was held.
Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 18, 2010 rps