IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12418 of 1991 Date of Decision : November 25, 2010. Shiv Narain ..... Petitioner. Versus. Joint Secretary to the State of Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Gram Panchayat, Sector-17, Chandigarh, and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. Present:- Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG Punjab, for the respondent-State. Miss Devki Anand, Advocate, with, Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the impleaded respondents. M. JEYAPAUL, J. (ORAL). Heard the submissions made on either side. 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Waryam Khera in the Panchayat elections held in the year, 1983. He was dismissed by the third respondent invoking his power under Section 102-A of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. But the said appeal was dismissed confirming the order passed by the third respondent. As against the order of dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent which was also rejected by the first respondent. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondents No. 1 to 3 dismissing his position as elected Sarpanch in the present writ petition. CWP No. 12418 of 1991 -2- 3. At the time when the petitioner preferred the writ petition, he moved a miscellaneous application praying to stay the operation of the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 1 to 3. This Court was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 1 and 3. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the above background of this case would submit that the petitioner would have completed the full tenure as the elected Sarpanch of the aforesaid village as the impugned orders passed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 were stayed. 5. In view of the above, I find that nothing survives in this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal passed by the respondents herein. 6. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. There is no order as to costs. (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE November 25, 2010. sjks.