JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral):- The petitioner impugns the order dated 3.9.2010 passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bhawanigarh, thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Batriana, Block Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. 2. Facts first. The election to the Gram Panchayat, Batriana, was held on 21.7.2008, wherein the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch. Consequently, petitioner assumed the charge of the office of Sarpanch on 23.8.2008. Some Panches of the Gram Panchayat moved an application dated 2.8.2010, which was received in the office of respondent No.3 on 9.8.2010, vide Annexure P-1. Respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 10.8.2010, Annexure P-2, to the petitioner mentioning therein that some Panches have made a written request that the petitioner should be removed by passing a ‘no confidence motion’ against him. Petitioner was also informed vide Annexure P-2 that a meeting in this regard, will be convened on 17.8.2010 at 11.00 a.m., in the office of respondent No.3. However, before the meeting for consideration of ‘no confidence motion’ could be convened on 17.8.2010, respondent No.3 issued another communication dated 16.8.2010, informing the petitioner that the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 17.8.2010, has been cancelled, till further orders. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued letter dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4), informing the petitioner that the meeting for considering ‘no confidence motion’ against him will be held on 3.9.2010. The petitioner was ordered to be removed from the post of Sarpanch by respondent No.3, by passing the impugned order (Annexure P-5) to the effect that ‘no confidence motion’ was carried against the petitioner. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said removal order by way of ‘no confidence motion’, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition. 4. While issuing notice of motion on 27.5.2011, this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the application for considering the resolution “No Confidence Motion” against the petitioner, was moved before the expiry of two years from the date, on which, he assumed his office of Sarpanch, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (since omitted). Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 26.08.2011. The operation of impugned order (Annexure P-5) is hereby stayed till further orders.” 5. In response, joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 26.08.2011. The operation of impugned order (Annexure P-5) is hereby stayed till further orders.” 5. In response, joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the petitioner filed his replication thereto. Another joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 12. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mandatory provisions of the law contained in Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Punjab Act No.19 of 1994) (for short ‘the Act’) have been glaringly violated, by respondent No.3, while entertaining the application dated 2.8.2010 vide Annexure P-1, before expiry of statutory period of two years. He next contended that since no other application was moved by respondent Nos. 6 to 12, the notice (Annexure P-4) dated 25.8.2010 was also equally without jurisdiction. He also submits that even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that respondent No.3 had received another application dated 24.8.2010 (Annexure R-1/T), still the notice (Annexure P-4) was bad in law, being contrary to the provisions of law contained in Section 19(2) of the Act, wherein a notice of clear seven days is provided. He finally submitted that since the proceedings of ‘no confidence motion’ allegedly held on 3.9.2012, were admittedly not signed by respondent No.3, Annexure P-5 was no order in the eyes of law and the petitioner could not have been removed from the office of Sarpanch because of which, the action was wholly without jurisdiction. 7. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhchain Singh v. State of Punjab and others, [2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 132] : 2006(1) PLR 290 and judgment dated 14.12.2010 passed in CWP No.19787 of 2010 (Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others). Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that since the impugned order (Annexure P-5) was without jurisdiction and not signed, as well, the same was liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that since the impugned order (Annexure P-5) was without jurisdiction and not signed, as well, the same was liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the State very fairly states that although, as per Annexure R-1/T, another application was received by respondent No.3, yet since the notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) was admittedly short of the statutory period of seven days and also because the impugned order (Annexure P-5) was admittedly not signed by respondent No.3, he was not in a position to defend the impugned orders. 9. However, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 6 to 12 vehemently contended that petitioner was rightly removed from the office of Sarpanch, as he lost the confidence of majority of Panches. ‘No confidence motion’ was duly carried out against the petitioner in the meeting held on 3.9.2010, which was presided over by respondent No.3. He further submits that even if the notice (Annexure P-2) was illegal, there was nothing wrong with the impugned notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4), which was rightly issued by respondent No.3. No illegality can be attached to the impugned order (Annexure P-5), even if it was not signed by respondent No.3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 12, next contended that non-signing of the proceedings and impugned order (Annexure P-5) by respondent No.3, will not render the proceedings of the meeting as illegal. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 12 concluded by submitting that since the writ petition was misconceived, the same was liable to be dismissed. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned notice dated 24.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) and the consequent proceedings held in the meeting dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) are the result of an action without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be set aside. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 11. The twin questions that fall for consideration before this Court are: (i) whether the notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) was illegal being in violation of the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, and (ii) whether the impugned removal order, being admittedly an unsigned order, was no order in the eyes of law. 12. 11. The twin questions that fall for consideration before this Court are: (i) whether the notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) was illegal being in violation of the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, and (ii) whether the impugned removal order, being admittedly an unsigned order, was no order in the eyes of law. 12. Since the issues involved herein pertain to the violation of provisions of Section 19 of the Act, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 19 of the Act, which reads as under:- 19. No-Confidence motion against Sarpanch. (1) An application regarding intention to move a motion of noconfidence against a Sarpanch be made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer by a majority of Panches: Provided that no such application shall be made unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which the Sarpanch assumed his office. (2) The Block Development and Panchayat Officer shall, within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of application under sub-section (1), convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat by giving seven clear days in notice, for discussing and taking decision on the noconfidence motion. (3) If the no-confidence motion is carried in the meeting convened under sub-section (2) which shall be presided over by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or an officer not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer authorised by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in this behalf, by a two-third majority of the total member of Panches holding office for the time being, the Sarpanch shall be deemed to have been removed from his office, and a new Sarpanch shall be elected in his place: Provided that if the no-confidence motion is lost another such motion shall not be moved against that Sarpanch before the expiry of two years from the date of its having been lost. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 12 fairly states that Annexures P-2 and P-3 were illegal. Now, if the notices contained in Annexures P-2 and P-4 are minutely compared, they are verbatim the same, of course, except the date, which was 10.8.2010 in Annexure P-2 and 25.8.2010 in Annexure P-4. Even if the contention raised by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 12 fairly states that Annexures P-2 and P-3 were illegal. Now, if the notices contained in Annexures P-2 and P-4 are minutely compared, they are verbatim the same, of course, except the date, which was 10.8.2010 in Annexure P-2 and 25.8.2010 in Annexure P-4. Even if the contention raised by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 12 is accepted that another application was received against the petitioner, vide Annexure R-1 dated 24.8.2010, that is found to be signed only be six Panches, whereas Annexure P-4 speaks about 7 Panches. Further, the notice dated 25.8.2010 is completely silent about the application dated 24.8.2010 (Annexure R-1). 13. Even if the above-said serious discrepancy is ignored, still, notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) does not meet the requirement of law, as envisaged under Section 19(ii) of the Act. On this issue, learned counsel for the respondents could not substantiate their arguments defending this notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4). The impugned notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) was admittedly short of clear seven days which was the statutory period. In this view of the matter, this Court feels no hesitation to hold that the notice dated 25.8.2010, was issued without jurisdiction and thus, not sustainable in law, being violative of Section 19(2) of the Act. The first question of law posed hereinabove, is answered, accordingly. 14. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of this Court in Sukhwinder Kaur’s case (supra). The relevant observations made by this Court in Sukhwinder Kaur’s case (supra),which aptly apply to the present case, read as under:- “As per the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006(1) PLR 290 seven days’ clear notice is required to be given under Section 19(2) of the Act and first day and the last day of the notice must be excluded to calculate seven days’ clear period in view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act.” 15. Similarly, in CWP No.18361 of 2010 titled as Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 13.12.2010, this Court held as under: - “In the opinion of this Court, 7 days clear period should be counted not from the date of notice but from the date notice is served on the members/panches after excluding the date of service of notice. State of Punjab and others, decided on 13.12.2010, this Court held as under: - “In the opinion of this Court, 7 days clear period should be counted not from the date of notice but from the date notice is served on the members/panches after excluding the date of service of notice. After the date of service of notice, there should be 7 days clear period in between the service of notice and the day of convening the meeting.” 16. Now, coming to the second question, since respondent No.4, the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer, i.e. respondent No.3, happened to be present in the Court, a pointed question was put to him by the Court, as to why he did not put his signature on the proceedings of ‘no confidence motion’, held in the meeting dated 3.9.2010, in case he presided over the meeting, he had no answer. 17. The petitioner was an elected Sarpanch. He was removed from his office by an unsigned order, Annexure P-5. It is the significant question of law, as posed above. 18. Further, after giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the peculiar fact situation of the present case, it is unhesitatingly held that impugned order (Annexure P-5), was no order in the eyes of law because admittedly, it was not signed by the competent authority. 19. This Court venture to draw support from the codified law, available in order XX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under:- “3.Judgment to be signed.- The judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by section 152 or on review.” 20. In view of the above unambiguous provisions of law and applying the same analogy to the facts of the case in hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that at the most, the impugned order could be termed only as a draft order. It was liable to be changed unless and until signed by the competent authority. Till the draft order is signed by the competent authority, it cannot be said to be an order, in the true sense of the word. It was liable to be changed unless and until signed by the competent authority. Till the draft order is signed by the competent authority, it cannot be said to be an order, in the true sense of the word. Thus, answer to the second question has to be an emphatic yes and it is held that the impugned removal order, being admittedly an unsigned order, was no order in the eyes of law. 21. No other argument was raised. 22. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Thus, the impugned notice dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) as well as the proceedings allegedly held in the meeting dated 3.9.2011 (Annexure P-5), are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------