- (1.) During Panchayat election held in June 2008, five Panches were elected in Village Ibrahimpur, Block Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch out of these Panches. On 15.9.2010, Block Development and Panchayat Officer (for short, "BDPO") convened a meeting under Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act") for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner. Said notice was served on the petitioner on 20.9.2010 and only two days thereafter, the meeting was fixed for 23.9.2010. In this meeting, four Panches were present, who stated that they are not in agreement with the Sarpanch. Fourth Panch, however, sided with the petitioner. The BDPO did not ask the Panches to vote but stated that three Panches were on the one side and two on the other and, thus, the resolution was passed by 2/3 rd majority. The petitioner would urge that three out of five Panches would not constitute 2/3 rd majority, which is the requirement to pass a valid no confidence motion against a Sarpanch. The resolution of no confidence motion, which was held passed, thus, is termed as illegal and so liable to be set-aside. The petitioner filed an appeal against this no confidence motion, which was dismissed on 1.11.2010, being not maintainable.
(2.) Respondent No.6 had filed a writ petition before this Court to challenge the ordinance deleting Section 19 of the Act. This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous as the ordinance was repealed by an Act during the pendency of the writ petition. The vires of amending Act, deleting Section 19 was thereafter challenged primarily on two counts. It was urged that making amended provision applicable with retrospective effect would be illegal. The retrospective effect of the amended provision was struck down and it was held that the amended provision would be applicable prospectively from the date of amendment i.e. 21.4.2011. Since no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed prior to the date of amendment, the resolution of no confidence motion was being put into operation.
(3.) The petitioner has, thus, filed the present petition to challenge the resolution.;