Civil Writ Petition No. 19190 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 19190 of 2009 Date of Decision: 1.11.2010 Iqbal Singh and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent No.4-Piara Singh has been elected as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Damunda, in the elections held in the year 2008. Before his election to the office of the Panch, in the year 2008, he was elected as a Sarpanch. It is alleged against respondent No.4 that without having requisite quorum of the meeting, he had passed the resolution and auctioned the trees. For this lapse, he was removed from the post of Sarpanch by respondent No.3-Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.4 filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 10.3.2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 19190 of 2009 2 (Annexure P3) remitted the matter to respondent No.3 to decide the same afresh. After holding the enquiry, respondent No.3 ordered recovery of ` 35,000/- from respondent No.4. In the present writ petition, the order (Annexure P3), passed by the Appellate Authority, is under challenge, whereby he remitted back the matter to respondent no.3-Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab. Since the proceedings, after the matter was remitted back, have concluded and appropriate penalty has been imposed upon respondent No.4-Piara Singh, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the penalty, so imposed upon respondent No.4, was not adequate, in fact the amount, more than ` 1,00,000/- ought to be imposed upon him. This Court is of the view that it is for the Appellate Authority to determine the quantum of the penalty and the writ Court cannot substitute its own opinion. Thus, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 1, 2010 “DK”