IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4334 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 19, 2009 Satpal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mrs. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that without reference to the documents and material produced by the petitioner, the petitioner, who is a Sarpanch, has been suspended. The petitioner, under Sub-Section (6) of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for, `the Act’) filed an appeal well within time. The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 9.3.2009. The matter, however, was not heard and adjourned to 16.3.2009. Now the same stands adjourned to 20.3.2009. In the meantime, so as to frustrate the right of appeal of the petitioner, vide Order dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P-8), the charge is sought to be given to another Panch on 20.3.2009. CWP No.4334 of 2009 [2] Notice of motion. Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the asking of the Court, accepts notice. Copy of the petition has been given. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned order. It is evident that the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Sarpanch. Sarpanch is a person elected at the nucleus level in a democratic set up. The Act provides for a right to file appeal. On perusal of the petition, it is evident that the appeal has been filed which, however, has been adjourned from time to time and has not been heard. Perusal of Annexure P-8 indicates that the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Talwara (for short, `BDPO’) has asked the other Panches to remain present on 20.3.2009 at 11.30 AM to authorise another Panch to work as a Sarpanch. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that right of the petitioner to appeal shall be frustrated if the charge of Sarpanch is handed over to another person. Considering the above, Annexure P-8 is quashed. Respondent No.1, in the meantime, is requested to deal with the appeal of the petitioner and take a decision thereon within 90 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. CWP No.4334 of 2009 [3] The petition is disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that in case the appeal is decided against the petitioner, the BDPO would be at liberty to nominate another person to take charge of the affairs of the Gram Panchayat as Sarpanch. Copy of the order be given under the signatures of the Reader. (AJAI LAMBA) March 19, 2009 JUDGE avin