HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 706 of 2005 (M/S) Bahadur Singh …. Petitioner Versus Collector, Chamoli and others … Respondents Mr. N.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 27th March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner is an elected “Sarpanch” of a “Van Panchayat”. He has filed this writ petition challenging the order-dated 28.4.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate/Van Panchayat Adhikari by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of “Sarpanch”. The petitioner states that the order dated 28.4.2005 is totally without jurisdiction in as much as the powers to remove a member of “Van Panchayat” or a “Sarpanch” of a “Van Panchayat” lie with the Collector under Rule 39 of “Uttaranchal Panchayati Van Niyamawali, 2001(from hereafter referred to as the “Niyamawali”). Secondly, such a removal even by a Collector can be done after an enquiry. The petitioner also contends that in the impugned order itself it is stated that the petitioner has been removed during the pendency of the enquiry. Therefore on this account as well, the order of removal of he petitioner from the post of “Sarpanch” is in violation of law. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for respondent- complainant has given a statement at the bar that during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Court, the term of “Van Panchayat” has come to an end and, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Be that as it may, even if the question being decided by this Court remains a moot question, this question has to be settled inasmuch as it is a pure question of law. On perusal of Rule 39 of the “Niyamawali”, it is clear that the power to remove a “Sarpanch” lies with the Collector. Evidently, the order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who is not a Collector and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. Moreover, Rule 39 of the “Niyamawali” also contemplates that the Collector can remove a “Sarpanch” either on his own or on a complaint, if after an enquiry he feels that such a removal is necessary. It is also apparent from the impugned order that the petitioner has been removed during the pendency of the enquiry. Therefore, both the contentions of the petitioner are valid contentions, and the order impugned is indeed in violation of law. Impugned order, therefore, is quashed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 27.3.2009 Avneet