Civil Writ Petition No.21525 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21525 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.04.2011 Balbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election, Harbans Singh(respondent No.4) was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Ghoman, District Gurdaspur, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. In the wake of letter dated 29.09.2010 of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur-respondent No.3, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab-respondent No.2, suspended Harbans Singh (respondent No.4) from the post of Sarpanch, by way of order dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-6). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-6), the appeal filed by Harbans Singh, Sarpanch, was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Civil Writ Petition No.21525 of 2010 2 Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab-respondent No.1, by virtue of impugned order dated 01.11.2010(Annexure P-7), which in substance is, as under:- “After hearing both the parties and perusal of the record, I come to the conclusion that appellant has not been provided any opportunity of hearing before suspending him. Except this appellant had gone to High Court for the welfare of the panchayat and he was arrested due to non appearance in another court. So, the prima facie the allegation levelled against the appellant is not correct. Appellant has not been given any hearing before sending the report by DD&PO. If the report had been sent by the DDPO after hearing then the position would have become clear. Director also did not provide any hearing to the appellant nor asked for any reply. Appellant was arrested due to non appearance in the court and not in any criminal case. Appeal has a merit so the appellant is reinstated by accepting the appeal. It is made clear that this order shall not effect the regular inquiry pending against the appellant and regarding this the inquiry officer who is conducting regular inquiry is directed to submit his inquiry report to the director within two months. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats is directed to take further action after receiving the inquiry report.” 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-7), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. At the very outset, learned State Counsel has filed an affidavit of the Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, on behalf of official respondent Nos.1 to 3, para 2 of which reads, as under:- “That the present writ petition has been infructuous because in compliance of the order Annexure P-7, the enquiry officer submitted the report before the respondent No.2. After giving the opportunity to the parties, the respondent No.4 and other 4 Panches have been removed vide order dated 17.1.2011. Thus, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground.” 6. Once, Harbans Singh(respondent No.4) has already been removed Civil Writ Petition No.21525 of 2010 3 from the post of Sarpanch, as depicted in the affidavit, then obviously the instant writ petition pertaining to his suspension has become infructuous. 7. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of, as having become infructuous. April 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE