C.W.P. No. 3094 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3094 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.08.2010 Haqiqat Singh .... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, etc. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Jatin Salwan, Advocate for the petitioner ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.8.2009 whereby suspension of the Sarpanch was removed. Learned Financial Commissioner in the impugned order has observed as under:- “ After hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusing the record placed on the file, it is concluded that in the report of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the basis of which he had been suspended, in that report this allegation had been leveled that in the complaint received against the appellant inspite of summoning him he had not come present. In this enquiry report neither it has been mentioned that what was the complaint and who was the complainant. In addition to this, on behalf of the C.W.P. No. 3094 of 2010 2 appellant, it was stated that the Director vide his letter No. 11719 dated 6.7.2009 had written to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the basis of whose report he had been placed under suspension that no documents have been appended alongwith the enquiry report. As such the documents may be sent. But before receipt of these documents, without listening to his stand he was suspended which is against the principles of natural justice. As such the appeal of the appellant is accepted because the allegations leveled against him does not prove. Therefore, while setting aside the order of suspension he is reinstated to the post of Sarpanch.” Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked is not able to tell how petitioner a resident of the same village is aggrieved from the order impugned herein and on what locus petitioner has to challenge the impugned order by which suspension of Sarpanch was invoked. In the opinion of this Court, petitioner has absolutely no locus and grievance against the impugned order. Petition is devoid of merit. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail any other legal remedy available under law. Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. (ALOK SINGH) 10.08.2010 JUDGE reena