Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 31 March, 2022
CWP-21082-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-21082-2021
Date of Decision: 31.03.2022
Paramjeet Kaur
....Petitioner
VS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Arun Kaundal, DAG Punjab
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
Judgment was reserved in this case on 10.03.2022 and learned counsel
for the petitioner was directed to submit written arguments. However, the same
has not been done till today and, thus, order is being passed on the basis of the
pleadings and submissions made in Court.
2. Elections to various Gram Panchayats were held in December 2018
and the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. In January 2019, the Gram Panchayat
was constituted. The Gram Panchayat has seven Panches and a Sarpanch.
According to the petitioner, respondents No. 5 to 8 are not cooperating with the
functioning of the Gram Panchayat under the influence of respondent No. 9.
Infact, the said respondent has been pressurizing the petitioner to join his political
party. On account of the non-cooperative attitude of respondents No. 5 to 8, the
development works in the Gram Panchayat area have been adversely affected and,
thus, a request dated 18.12.2020 was made to the Block Development and
Panchayat Officer to permit the Gram Panchayat to carry out development works.
A similar request was reiterated on 28.12.2020. Despite the same, vide order dated
1 of 4
22.02.2021 a Government official has been appointed for carrying out development
works. The said Government official was misutilizing the funds released. Instead
of purchasing new material, he was utilizing material purchased earlier and, thus, a
complaint dated 22.02.2021 was submitted to the BDPO but no action was taken
against the official. Instead, the scope of work was increased by releasing
additional grant. On 02.09.2021, Agenda Notice was issued by the petitioner
convening a meeting on 10.09.2021 and listing the agenda to be discussed. On
10.09.2021, the meeting was held in the presence of the Sarpanch and three
Panches. A resolution was passed to make the passage to the Shamshan Ghat
Pakka. Another resolution was passed on 12.09.2021 resolving to make another
rasta passing through the village 'Pakka'. Yet, the official respondents did not heed
the resolutions. According to the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') the Sarpanch is entitled to cast a casting vote. This legal
provision has been ignored by respondents and, thus, a direction is sought to them
to permit the Sarpanch to perform her duties.
3. Although details regarding alleged illegal appointment of a
Government Officer to carry out development works have been given, the legality
or validity of the said appointment is not being considered as no relief in that
regard has been sought.
4. The only issue to be examined is whether the resolutions dated
10.09.2021 and 12.09.2021 had to be implemented by the official respondents and
non-implementation of the same is an attempt made by the State machinery to
interfere with the functioning of a duly elected body.
5. Section 24 of the Act is reproduced for ready reference :-
"24. Quorums and Procedure (1) The majority of Panches for the
time being holding office shall form a quorum and if at the time
appointed for the meeting, a quorum is not present -
(a) the presiding authority shall wait for thirty minutes, and if
2 of 4
within such period there is no quorum, the presiding authority
shall adjourn the meeting to such time on the following day or
such future day as he may fix;
(b) similarly, the presiding authority after waiting for thirty
minutes adjourn the meeting if, at any time, after it has begun
attention is drawn to the want of a quorum and the business
which could not be considered at the meeting postponed under
clause (a) for want of quorum, shall be brought before and
disposed of at the meeting so fixed or at any subsequent
adjourned meeting at which there is a quorum.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, at every meeting
of the Gram Panchayat, the Sarpanch and in his absence a Panch
elected out of the Panches present shall preside for the occasion.
(3) All questions shall, unless otherwise specifically provided, be
decided by a majority of votes of the present and voting and the
Sarpanch or Panch presiding, as the case may, unless he refrains
from voting, shall give his vote before declaring the number of votes
for and against a question and in the case of equality of votes, he may
give his casting vote.
(4) No member of a gram Panchayat shall vote on, or take part in the
discussion of any question coming up for consideration at a meeting
of a Gram Panchayat, if the question is one in which apart from its
general application to the public, he has any pecuniary interest, and if
the person presiding has such an interest, he shall not preside over
the meeting when such question comes up for consideration.
(5) If the person presiding is believed by any member present at the
meeting to have any such pecuniary interest in any matter under
discussion, and if a motion to that be carried, he shall not preside at
the meeting during such discussion or vote on or take part in it and in
such a case any member other than that member of the Gram
Panchayat may be chosen to preside at the meeting during the
continuance of such discussion."
6. Sub Section 1 provides that majority of Panches shall form a quorum
and if quorum is not available, the presiding authority shall wait for thirty minutes
3 of 4
and then adjourn the meeting. A similar action is to be taken if quorum ceases to
exist during the course of a meeting.
7. In this case the Gram Panchayat consists of 7 Panches and a Sarpanch
and, thus, quorum comprises of 5 Panches including Sarpanch. The quorum was
not complete either on 10.09.2021 or on 12.09.2021 as only four Panches were
present i.e. the Sarpanch and three Panches. Infact, in resolution dated 12.09.2021
it has been recorded that quorum is not complete. Under the circumstances action
had to be taken in accordance with the aforementioned Section 24 of the Act and
the same having not been done, the resolutions dated 10.09.2021 and 12.09.2021
can not be termed to be legal. Issue of casting vote would arise only if quorum is
complete and, thus, the prayer of the petitioner can not be granted.
7. Reliance upon Baljinder Kaur vs. Director, Panchayats, Punjab and
others, 2015(3) RCR(Civil) 1026 is misplaced as question of quorum has not been
considered therein. The judgment is, thus, distinguishable.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition has no merit and is
dismissed.
( SUDHIR MITTAL )
31.03.2022 JUDGE
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
