MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - (1.) TERSINESSLY , the brief facts which require to be noticed, for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat Elections, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch, whereas respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were elected as Panches of the Gram Panchayat of village Danewala, on 17.7.2008, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act,1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Since then, she was stated to have been working to the entire satisfaction of all the members of the Gram Sabha in general and Gram Panchayat in particular.
(2.) THE petitioner claimed that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer( respondent No. 2) issued the notice dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-1), to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider "no confidence motion" on 22.9.2010, but no such notice was stated to have been served upon the petitioner. The respondent No.2 was stated to have presided over the alleged meeting, wherein a resolution of "no confidence motion" was passed and petitioner was illegally removed from the office of Sarpanch, vide resolution dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) in this context. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned notice (Annexure P-1) and resolution (Ananexure P-2), invoking the provisions of the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE case set up by the petitioner, in brief in so far as the relevant, was that neither any notice dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) was issued to her, nor any proper meeting was convened on 22.9.2010, in which, she was illegally removed by the respondents. The impugned notice (Annexure P-1) and resolution (Annexure P-2) were stated to be illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act.;