ALOK SINGH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing notices dated 17.9.2010, 24.9.2010 and 4.10.2010 to convene meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' on 24.9.2010, 1.10.2010 and 6.10.2010. Petitioner is also assailing meeting dated 6.10.2010 as well as recommendation/letter dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent No. 4 has recommended to respondent No. 3 to accept 'No Confidence Motion' dated 24.9.2010 and election dated 30.11.2010 whereby respondent No. 6 was elected as new Sarpanch in place of the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case inter alia are that petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mahadev Kalan, Block Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, in the year 2008. Respondents No. 5 to 7 moved an application to respondent No. 4 on 10.9.2010 requesting to convene meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 issued notice dated 17.9.2010 to convene meeting for 24.9.2010 to discuss 'No Confidence Motion'. On 24.9.2010 petitioner was not present, therefore, meeting was adjourned for 1.10.2010. Again second notice dated 24.9.2010 was issued to convene meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner on 1.10.2010. Again notice dated 4.10.2010 was issued to convene meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' on 6.10.2010. On 6.10.2010, out of five Panches three supported 'No Confidence Motion', therefore, 'No Confidence Motion' failed. On 16.11.2010 respondent No. 4 has sent one letter to respondent No. 3 saying four Panches have made statement on 24.9.2010 in favour of 'No Confidence Motion', therefore, 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch stood passed. Thereafter on 30.11.2010 a meeting was called to elect new Sarpanch wherein respondent No. 6, Sukhjinder Singh, was declared elected as Sarpanch. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
(3.) IN view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mohinder Khan v. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, CWP No. 17943 of 2010 decided on 15.11.2010, as per Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, seven days' clear notice is required to convene meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' and for the purpose of counting clear seven days, date of notice and date of meeting shall be excluded, therefore, first notice dated 17.9.2010 to convene meeting dated 24.9.2010 was short of seven days, therefore, meeting dated 24.9.2010 would not be legal. Moreover, Annexure P-3 would reveal that on 24.9.2010 no meeting was held and it was adjourned for 1.10.2010. Again on 1.10.2010 meeting was adjourned. Perusal of Annexure P-5 would reveal that again meeting was convened for 6.10.2010 vide notice dated 4.10.2010. In the meeting held on 6.10.2010, three Panches out of five supported 'No Confidence Motion', therefore, 'No Confidence Motion' dated 6.10.2010 was not accepted. Moreover, as per Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohinder Ram v. Hans Raj & Ors., LPA No. 138 of 2011 decided on 29.4.2011, three out of five Panches do not constitute 2/3rd majority which is sine quo non for passing the 'No Confidence Motion'.;