- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for a direction to convene meeting to consider 'no confidence motion' against respondent no.5 Sarpanch of village Babanpur, District Sangrur.
(2.) Election to the Panchayat was held on 29.5.2008. Respondent No.5 S.Gurdarshan Singh was elected as Sarpanch on 17.7.2008. Requisition for 'no confidence motion' was moved and meeting was held on 14.9.2010. Thereafter 'no confidence motion' was passed against respondent no.5 on 22.9.2010. The 'no confidence motion' was quashed on writ petition filed by respondent no.5 being Civil Writ Petition No.21742 of 2010 vide order dated 7.12.2010 on the ground that on the date of application under Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 period of two years from the date of assuming of office of Sarpanch had not been expired, as statutorily required. However, liberty to move fresh application for consideration of 'no confidence motion' was granted. Though fresh application was moved, meeting was not called against which writ petition giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant. During the pendency of the petition, an amendment was made to the statute deleting the provision for 'no confidence motion' with retrospective effect. This Court vide judgment dated 12.5.2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.7392 of 2011 Nirbhai Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others quashed the amendment to the extent of retrospectivity and held that amendment could be operative with effect from 21.4.2011. Having regard to the amendment, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It was held that no direction for consideration of 'no confidence motion' could be issued after the amendment.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly 'no confidence motion' has not been passed prior to 21.4.2011 and thereafter in view of the statutory bar such 'no confidence motion' cannot be moved. The earlier 'no confidence motion' passed on 22.9.2010 stands set aside and order setting aside the same has attained finality, having not been challenged. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show how direction for consideration of 'no confidence motion' can be issued. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.;