IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5584 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.11.2010 Ram Parsad .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG Haryana for the respondent – State 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner – the then Sarpanch of the village, Gram Panchayat Bhatla was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.1.2010. No removal order has been passed against the petitioner. Term of the Sarpanch has expired in the month of May, 2010, hence present petition has rendered infructuous. However, the only apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the suspension order passed, an FIR can be lodged against the petitioner and contents of the impugned order can be read against the petitioner. Apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived for the simple reason enquiry has not been concluded and no removal order was passed before the term of Sarpanch was expired. C.W.P. No. 5584 of 2010 2 Present petition has rendered infructuous, hence same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that no contents of the impugned order shall be read against the petitioner in the criminal case. (ALOK SINGH) 10.11.2010 JUDGE reena