Natha Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Lohar Ka Kalan in the election held in 1993, It is the case of the petitioner that certain actions that he had taken in favour of the Gram Panchayat had annoyed not only the employees of the Gram Sabha but also its members. Accordingly a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner on 17th October, 1996 on the grounds detailed in Annexure R-1 to the writ petition. On receiving this notice, respondent No. 2 the B.D.P.O. fixed the meeting of the Gram Sabha on 7th November, 1996 to consider the motion of no-confidence. It is further the case of the petitioner that no notice of the meeting was issued to him and when he came to know about the meeting two/three days before the date fixed, he approached respondent No. 2 and requested him to supply a copy of the application moved against him but the same was denied to him. The meeting was held on 7th November, 1997 which was attended by the petitioner and the motion for no-confidence was duly carried, after the opinion of the members of the Gram Sabha had been recorded in the proceeding book and as most of the voters were illiterate, they had thumb marked the'' same as it had been passed around by the subordinate offirials, it could not be conclusively said that these officials had recorded the opinion correctly. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, declared the no-confidence motion as carried by majority of 700 votes. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application Ex. P2 to respondent No. 2 asking for a copy of the non-confidence application on 7th November, 1996, but he received a reply dated 12.11.19% informing him that a copy would be supplied only after getting clearance of the Director. The petitioner then approached the Director on 14.11.1996 and requested for a copy of the aforesaid application but the same was not supplied. The petitioner when left with no remedy, has filed the present writ petition making a prayer that his removal from the office of Sarpanch pursuance to the no-confidence motion passed in the meeting held on 7th November, 1996, be quashed.

Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has also been filed on behalf of the State. In the meantime, a fresh election for the office of Sarpanch has also been held as vide order of this Court dated 4th March, 1997, it was directed that though the election may go on but the result be not declared and it be kept in a sealed cover and sent to this Court. The result has been perused by me now and it transpires that one Nirmal Singh, who is represented by Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, before me today, has been declared elected and a reply has also been filed by him. It is admitted by the respondents that the no-confidence motion was moved on 17th October, 1996 and notice with regard to the meeting fixed for 7th November, 1996 was issued on 13.10.1996, and that a copy of the notice was fixed at prominent places in the village. It is also admitted that no copy of the notice was supplied to the petitioner personally but the plea taken is that there was no requirement under the law to do so. It has also been pleaded that as the petitioner had himself attended the meeting and signed'' the proceedings book in token of his attendance, no grievance could now be made that no notice had been issued to him.

Mr. B.R. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a two fold arguments before me. He has firstly urged that it was just and proper that a copy of the application seeking a motion of no-confidence be served upon him so that he could have an adequate opportunity to defend himself, as the removal of a person from an elected body was a matter of moment. Reliance has also been placed on Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 in this regard. He has also urged that the method of voting was apparently faulty as the members of the Gram Sabha being largely illiterate could not be expected to know as to against which opinion they were called upon to put their thumb impressions and they were left virtually to the whims of class IV employees who had taken their thumb impressions by circulation.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has urged that Section 19 of the Act did not provide for the issuance of a notice to the incumbent Sarpanch personally before a no-confidence motion could be considered, and that as the Act and Rules were silent on the method of voting, the method followed in the present case could not be faulted.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help.

The first point urged by Mr. Mahajan flows from a reading of Section 19 of the Act and is reproduced below.-

"Section 19. (1) An application regarding intention to move a motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch be made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer by a two-third majority of the total number of members of the Gram Sabha concerned:

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 Sabha by giving seven clear days notice, for discussing and taking decision on the no-confidence 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 any officer not below the rank of Social Education and Panchayat Officer authorised by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in this behalf, by a majority of the members of the Gram Sabha present and voting concerned, the Sarpanch shall be deemed to have been removed from hi 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."

Some hint can be taken from the Section that a notice specifically to the Sarpanch concerned is visualised therein as Sub-section (2) talks about seven days clear notice for the purpose of holding a meeting and the words "for discussing and taking decision on the no-confidence motion" and clearly visualise that a vote on a motion of no-confidence is not a small matter to be taken lightly but is to be decided after discussion and debate. It is, therefore, apparent that the Sarpanch against whom a no-confidence motion has been moved must have knowledge of the allegations that have been made against him, failing which a discussion on the motion would be meaningless. The argument of Mr. Mahajan, is supported by a judgment of this Court repotted in Mukhliar Singh v. Director, Panchayats 1981 PLJ 477 which dealt with the provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1954 which are almost similar to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. This Court held that seven days notice to the, defaulting Sarpanch was necessary for the purpose of discussion and taking a decision on the no-confidence motion against him and that the provision with regard to notice to him was a mandatory one. It is significant that under the Gram Panchayat Act, a no-confidence motion was to be considered only by the members of the Gram Panchayat i.e. five to nine persons in all and even in that context, the Court observed that a notice to the Sarpanch was necessary. To my mind, the issuance of such a notice to. the defaulting Sarpanch would be even more obligatory where all the members of the Gram Sabha (in this case 1380) constitute the body which is to take a decision on the no-confidence motion.

In the light of what has been held above, the second point raised by Mr. Mahajan need not be gone into.

For the, reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed, the proceedings of the meeting held on 7th October, 1996 are quashed. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to have fresh meeting of the Gram Sabha after giving the required notice. Ipso facto, the election held on 10th March, 1997 in which Nirmal Singh has been elected as Sarpanch is also quashed. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties.