D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 457/2008 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rohida v. Champa Lal & ors. Date of order : 14.01.2009 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.R.Panwar . . . Mr. K.K.Shah for the appellant Mr. B.N.Kalla for respondent no.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.1.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder without interfering with the notice dated 28.9.2005 as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ application, disposed of the writ application with certain directions for which no prayer was made. Vide Annexure 10 to the writ application a mere notice was issued to the writ petitioner by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rohida, Panchayat Samiti, Pindwara, District Sirohi for removal of the cabin in which he was running shop for selling electric goods on basis of complaint of Block Development Officer dated 24.9.2005. The learned Single Judge of this Court however, on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner directed the authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of resolution no. 42 dated 8.11.2004 issued by the Gram Panchayat itself. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the writ application was filed with a limited prayer to set aside the notice as contained in Annexure 10, but the learned Single Judge of this Court without expressing any opinion on the notice directed the authorities to accept the remaining sum of Rs. 16,400/- from the petitioner pursuant to resolution no. 42 dated 8.11.2004 and execute necessary sale-deed in his favour. Learned counsel further submitted that the cabin in question since was situated near a school and Angan Bari Centre, that was obstructing and causing inconvenience to the school and the Angan Bari Centre on account of gathering of persons for purchase of Gutkha etc. From the cabin in - 2 - question. The Block Development Officer on receiving complaints directed the Panchayat authorities for removal of cabin in question. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Panchayat has already given an alternative land to the writ petitioner for installation of cabin in question and thus in no way he can be said to be prejudicied as there would be no interference in the trade and business being carried out by the writ petitioner at the alternative place. Per se, it appears that the notice issued as contained in Annexure 10 in the ordinary course could not have been interfered with and the writ petitioner could have been directed to file his show cause before the authorities placing the matter in defence. In view of the reasons aforementioned, in our view, the order impugned which has gone beyond the prayer of the writ application would not be sustainable in law. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Order impugned is set aside. Before parting with this order, we would like to observe that the Panchayat shall give alternative place to the writ petitioner to do his business in electric goods. (H.R.Panwar),J. (Narayan Roy), C.J. Mathur/