IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16768 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 25.11.2008 Surinder Kaur .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is former Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Kumbra, Tehsil and District Mohali, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order of her removal i.e. order dated 1.3.2007, and the order 6.6.2008, whereby the appeal against the said order has been dismissed. The petitioner has further sought quashing of the order dated 31.7.2008, whereby the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kharar, has assessed an amount of Rs.3,28,625/-, which is to be recovered from the petitioner under Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). CWP No. 16768 of 2008 -2- Learned counsel for the respondents states that as far as the relief against the order of removal is concerned, this petition has become infructuous, as the term of the petitioner as Sarpanch has expired and thereafter, fresh election of the Gram Panchayat has been held, in which new Sarpanch has been elected. However, regarding the second prayer, learned counsel submits that against the order of assessment, passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, remedy of appeal is available under Section 216 (3) of the Act. Therefore, against the said order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that as far as the relief against the removal of petitioner from the office of Sarpanch is concerned, the same has become infructuous, in view of the election of new Gram Panchayat. So far as the second relief is concerned, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy of appeal is available. However, learned counsel submits that since the said order has been passed on the basis of observations made in the order of removal, therefore, the petitioner will file appeal against the said order and the Appellate Authority be directed not to be influenced by any observation recorded in the order of removal. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection in the filing of appeal by the petitioner and the respondents will not raise any objection with regard to the limitation. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with CWP No. 16768 of 2008 -3- liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order dated 31.7.2008, within a period of three weeks from today and if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider the same on merits, without being influenced by any observation or finding recorded in the order of removal. The Appellate Authority will arrive at its independent conclusion as per the material and arguments raised before it. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 25, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE