IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19009 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 25, 2010. Ram Kumar .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 5. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 5 only at this stage. On the asking of the Court, Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice their behalf. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is neither any need to serve the private respondents nor any necessity to seek counter reply/affidavit from the official respondents at this stage. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Ranjit Nagar (Seona), District Patiala. He is aggrieved by the letter dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure P-5/T) sent by the Administrator, PUDA, Patiala to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, recommending the petitioner's C.W.P.No .19009 of 2010 2 suspension on the ground of alleged loss caused by him to the Government property. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that whether there exists a valid ground for suspension of a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or not, is to be independently assessed/ examined by the competent authority. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, not to act mechanically on the basis of the complaint dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure P-5/T) and form his own independent opinion before taking any action against the petitioner. Dasti. October 25, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE