JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The only dispute in the present petition is as to whether meeting for 'No Confidence Motion' can be convened without proper service of notice under Section 19(2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no notice has ever been served on the petitioner for convening the meeting for 'No Confidence Motion'.
(3.)Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 11 has placed on record the alleged notice of meeting dated 09.08.2010, as well as, alleged report regarding service of notice dated 11.08.2010. From the perusal of the report, it is revealed that no notice was ever received by the petitioner in person. It has been reported that Sarpanch has allegedly refused to accept the notice, however, no affixation of notice was done in some conspicuous part of the residence.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.