AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 210 wordsHeard.
The petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 by order dated 30.11.2017 which
was set aside by the Collector in an appeal preferred by the petitioner by order dated 26.02.2018 against which revision was preferred by the
respondent No. 6, whereby the learned Commissioner by its order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure â€" P/1) has stayed the order of Collector, aggrieved
against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is unsustainable and bad in law and
is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and would support the order impugned.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be served if the Commissioner is
directed to hear and dispose of the revision preferred by the private respondent expeditiously preferably within a period of three weeks from today
after hearing both the parties.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).