- (1.) Out of the 7 members who originally constituted the Gram Panchayat of village Neela Heri, 2 had died leaving the Pancnayat to be constituted by the remaining five. A vote of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner who was the Sarpanch of the said Panchayat in an extraordinary general meeting of the Panchayat held on March 20, 1975, by a majority of 3 to 2- The no- confidence resolution passed in that meeting was, however, set aside by a Division Bench of this Court (R.N. Mittal and Bains, JJ.) on May 16, 1975, white allowing the present petitioner's Civil Writ Petition No. 2234 of 1975. It is the common case of both sides that the only ground on which that petition was allowed and the resolution of no-confidence, dated March 20, 1975, was annulled was that the meeting in question had been presided over by one of the Panches and not by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or any other officer authorised by him. After the decision of the Division Bench in the previous writ petition, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer respondent No. 1, issued a fresh notice, dated May 21, 1975, convening a fresh extraordinary general meeting of the Gram Panchayat for May 28, 1975. In that meeting again the vote of no-confidence against the petitioner was passed by a majority of 3 to 2. Copy of the resolution passed at that meeting is An-nexure P. 1.
(2.) The validity and legality of the second meeting hold on May 28, 1975, has now been impugned in the present petition before us on four grounds, namely:- (1) that the first proviso to second proviso in Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, as amended in Haryana, bars the convening of a meeting for considering a proposal for no-confidence similar to the one which was not passed at a meeting held within one year prior to the meeting in which the impugned resolution was passed; (2) that the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 9 makes the previous permission of the Director for holding a meeting tor passing a vote of no-confidence against a Sarpanch a condition precedent and inasmuch as such permission was not separately obtained for the meeting in which the impugned resolution was now passed, the meeting should be deemed to have been held without the requisite permission; the argument being that the permission granted by the Director for the previous meeting held on March 20, 1975, lapsed with the holding of that meeting and fresh consent was necessary as a sine qua non for the holding of the meeting on May 28, 1975; (3) that a resolution of no-confidence under the second proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 can only be passed by the Panchayat which is constituted according to the provisions of the Act and inasmuch as the Panchayat which purports to have passed the resolution consisted of only 5 member-: as against the prescribed strength of 7 members, the Panchayat was not constituted properly and no valid resolution of no-confidence could be passed by such a Panchayat; and (4) that in the absence of any statutory provision contained in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder, providing for the manner of calling and conducting the meeting for passing a resolution of no-confidence, it is necessary that the same procedure should be followed for the conduct of such a meeting as is prescribed by Rules 38 and 39 of the Rules as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana, 1974 Pun LJ 365; and inasmuch as the said procedure for the conduct of the meeting was not followed in the instant case by votes having been allowed to be cast openly by the show of hands and not by secret ballot as required by the aforesaid rules, the proceedings of the meeting resulting in the passing of the impugned no-confidence motion are liable to be quashed.
(3.) The first two points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner appear to us to be based on a misconception of the legal position. The no-confidence motion was sought to be introduced against the petitioner. The Director granted his previous permission for the consideration of the motion-It is only the meeting, dated March 20, 1975, in which the motion was considered that has been held to be illegal by the order of this Court in the petitioner's earlier writ petition. The resultant legal position is that the meeting, dated March 20, 1975, is deemed to have never been held as the purported meeting was no meeting in the eye of law, as it had not been held strictly in conformity with the statutory requirements of the Act and the Rules. This being so, the proposed resolution is deemed in law not to have been considered at all by the panches and they had no legal opportunity to vote for or against it till the present meeting, dated May 28, 1975, was held. The previous permission granted by the Director would lapse only if and after the no-confidence motion is considered in a legally held meeting and it is either passed or defeated. Such a meeting was held for the first time on May 28, 1975. For the same reason it cannot be argued successfully that the no-confidence motion had "not been passed" in the earlier meeting which was held within one year of the present meeting, as in the eye of law there was no earlier meeting. Contentions Nos. .1 and 2 of the learned counsel for the petitioner are, in this view of the matter, devoid of merit and are repelled.;