Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1277 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Singh v. Jeet Singh

2012-09-24

INDERJIT SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Four Panches of Gram Panchayat Simrianwala, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 4.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Civil Writ Petition No.23186 of 2010 filed by respondent no.1 Jeet Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was allowed and the resolution dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) passing No Confidence Motion against him was set aside on the ground that when the said resolution was passed Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was already omitted with retrospective date i.e w.e.f 1.7.2010 vide notification dated 14.12.2010 and the resolution is dated 22.11.2010. 2. Though this appeal is barred by limitation and along with the appeals, the appellants have filed separate application (C.M No.1506 of 2012) for condonation of 308 days delay in filing the appeal, yet without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that issue with regard to the retrospective date of omission of Section 19 of the Act by an Ordinance on the Punjab Panchayati Raj Amendment Ordinance Act, 2010 had already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh vs. State of Punjab, [2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1601] : (CWP No.7392 of 2011) decided on 12.5.2011 wherein it was held that the said amendment will be applicable w.e.f the date from which it was made effective i.e 14.12.2010. In view of the said legal position, the learned counsel argued that when the resolution of No Confidence Motion was passed on 22.11.2010, Section 19 of the Act was very much in existence in the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has acted illegally while setting aside the said resolution on the ground that on the date of passing the said resolution, Section 19 of the Act had already been omitted by the State Government with retrospective date i.e 1.7.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not controvert the aforesaid legal position. However, he submitted that respondent no.1 has challenged the said resolution being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not controvert the aforesaid legal position. However, he submitted that respondent no.1 has challenged the said resolution being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. He argued that still the appellants want to argue that the Meeting for convening the No Confidence Motion was not properly convened after giving the notice of requisite period. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider this aspect of the matter. Counsel for the respondents have no objection if after setting aside the impugned order the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider this aspect of the matter. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider the issue whether the resolution or No Confidence Motion was passed in conformity with the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. Disposed of.