JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J.: (Oral).- Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seven days’ clear notice is required to be served to convene the meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’; if notice is not clear seven days’ notice then any meeting held pursuant to the invalid notice would be nullity and shall stand vitiated; he contends that notice in the present case is dated 30.8.2010 and meeting in question was held on 6.9.2010 while as per judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2010 in CWP No.17943 of 2010, Mohinder Khan Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, date of notice i.e. 30.8.2010 and date of meeting i.e. 6.9.2010 must be excluded while counting seven days. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly stated that notice in question is not clear seven days’ notice, therefore, meeting held pursuant to the notice in question is nullity in view of the dictum of this Court in the matter of Mohinder Khan Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, CWP No.17943 of 2010 decided on 15.11.2010. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly stated that let impugned resolution and notice be quashed and respondents shall issue fresh notice strictly in accordance with Section 19 of the Act and shall convene fresh meeting after expiry of seven days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that after amendment of Section 19 of the Act by Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2011 now no meeting can be convened to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’. He has further contended that no meeting can be convened for next two years from the date of ‘No Confidence Motion’ dated 6.9.2010 even if it is held that if application to call meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ was moved prior to amendment of Section 19, therefore, meeting can be convened as per Section 19 of the Act prior to its amendment. 4. Admittedly, request was sent to convene the meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ prior to the amendment in Section 19, therefore, any request or application moved prior to the amendment in Section 19 of the Act shall be dealt with in accordance with the then prevailing law in view of Section 6(c) & (d) of the General Clauses Act. 4. Admittedly, request was sent to convene the meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ prior to the amendment in Section 19, therefore, any request or application moved prior to the amendment in Section 19 of the Act shall be dealt with in accordance with the then prevailing law in view of Section 6(c) & (d) of the General Clauses Act. In the opinion of this Court, ‘No Confidence Motion’ cannot be moved within next two years if earlier ‘No Confidence Motion’ is lost. In the present case, notice dated 30.8.2010 and meeting dated 6.9.2010 to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ is hereby held illegal, therefore, fresh legal notice can be issued and proviso has no application in the present case. 5. Present petition is allowed. Notice dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) and resolution dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. However, respondents shall be at liberty to issue fresh notice to convene meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’. ----------0BSK0----------