Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Harjinder Singh @ Jonti And Others vs State Of Punjab on 21 December, 2011

Ram Kishore Goyal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 April, 2012

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no opportunity of hearing was granted and that objections were not decided. Still further, it has been argued that name of the Gram Panchayat was not mentioned in the draft or final notification. It has been further argued that the boundaries have been extended five times and the house tax would be imposed without facility and negates the mandate of the Constitution, establishing the Panchayats under Part IX of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Division Bench judgments of this court reported as Harjinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 610; Kamaljeet Singh v. State of Punjab through Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local Government Department, 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 438 and Sewa Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 292.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Swaran Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 August, 2012

Once the appellant was deemed to have been removed from the office of the Sarpanch, the vacancy of the Sarpanch was to be filled up by holding election in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Merely because after passing of the `no confidence motion' against the appellant in a validly convened meeting on 30.9.2010, she presided over some meeting of the Gram Panchayat, it cannot be said that she continued to hold the office of the Sarpanch and the office of the Sarpanch was not vacant, and the election of Smt. Anita Devi as new Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was not valid. During the course of hearing, an argument was raised that until and unless LPA No. 1093 of 2012 ( O&M ) -9- the removal of the appellant from the office of the Sarpanch was not notified and her name was not de-notified from the list of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, it cannot be said that she had vacated the office. Similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court in Harjinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, LPA No. 2157 of 2011, decided on 29.2.2012. In that case, in the meeting of the Panches held on 1.11.2010, `no confidence motion' was passed against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat by two-third majority of the total number of Panches, but his name was not formally de-notified in the Official Gazette, and the learned Single Judge quashed the resolution of `no confidence motion' passed against the Sarpanch, while holding that mere passing of `no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch is not sufficient for his removal from his office, until and unless the other formalities, particularly de-notifying of his name from the office of Sarpanch in the Official Gazette, are completed. The Division Bench in that case, while reversing this finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard, held that there is no statutory requirement of de- notifying the name of removed Sarpanch on passing `no confidence motion' against him. The provision of election of the Sarpanch and procedure as well as manner in which the election of Sarpanch will be held are entirely different from the provision regarding removal of Sarpanch from his office by passing `no confidence motion' against him. Section 19 (3) of the Act clearly postulates that in case the `no confidence motion' against the LPA No. 1093 of 2012 ( O&M ) -10- Sarpanch is carried in the meeting convened under sub-section (2) by two- third majority of the total number of Panches holding office for the time being, the Sarpanch shall be deemed to have been removed from his office and a new Sarpanch shall be elected in his place. Neither for removal of the Sarpanch after carrying `no confidence motion' nor for election of a new Sarpanch, any de-notification is required. After election of the new Sarpanch, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, his election is required to be notified, but it is not mandatory or a condition precedent that before his name is notified, name of the earlier Sarpanch, against whom `no confidence motion' has been carried, and who is deemed to have been removed from his office, shall be de-notified.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - S K Mittal - Full Document

Harjinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 2 July, 2015

A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.") was filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 16.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur, vide which application filed by the petitioners under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in Case No.90/05.09.2012 RBT No.106/28.04.2014 titled 'Harjinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab' was dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 December, 2012

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that if the alignment of the Minor can be changed to adjust landless labourers as in another Civil Writ Petition No.9964 of 2011 titled "Harjinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others" decided on 22.12.2011, the alignment should be changed in respect of the land of the petitioners as well.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document
1