IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21745 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: January 08, 2009 Sukhminder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 08.12.2008 Annexure P-5 whereby appeal filed by respondent no. 4 Rashpal Singh has been accepted and order of suspension dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Director, Panchayat has been set aside. Learned counsel contends that the record had not been summoned and it is without any basis that the order of suspension has been revoked. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned order Annexure P-5. Respondent no. 4 Rashpal Singh is Panch of Gram Panchayat Govindpura and was suspended essentially on the allegation that his father is in illegal possession over the land of Gram Panchayat. It is further the allegation that Rashpal Singh is living with his father. Learned counsel has not pointed out any error in the decision making process or even the jurisdiction of respondent no. 1 to pass C.W.P. No. 21745 of 2008 -2- the order. So far as the material available with the authority is concerned, so as to revoke the order of suspension, reference has been made to the ration card and receipt of chulla tax. The documents produced by the private respondent prima facie indicate that Rashpal Singh had a separate residence from his father. Perusal of the order further indicates that the Inquiry Officer has been directed to conduct demarc ation of the land in dispute and submit his report in regard to the fact whether residence of the respondent is joint with his father or not. It has further been directed that the report be submitted within three months to Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and Director, Rural Development should take further action on the basis of the inquiry report. I find that relevant material has been considered before passing of the order. No ground for judicial review of the order is made out. Dismissed. 08.01.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE