J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.) VIRNDER Mohan petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sanghol, Tehsil Samrala District Ludhiana. The proceedings under section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter the Act) were started against him on the baits of fife allegations contained in Annexure P. 1 which he was called upon to explain. He submitted his explanation Annexure P. 2. The Director of Panchayats conducted the enquiry associating the petitioner and passed the order dated April 17.1975, Annexure P. 3 ordering his removal. He also directed that proceedings under section 105 of the Act be initiated against him and the action completed within two month. It is against this order that Virender Mohan has filed the present writ alleging that the Director of Panchayats while passing the impugned order Annexure P. (sic) has been swayed totally which extraneous and irrelevant consideration which are not borne out either from the record of from the facts of the case. He has, therefore, prayed that the order Annexure P. 3 be quashed.
(2.) THE writ has been resisted. It has been averred that the petitioner was given full opportunity to produce his evidence with a View to prove his innocence. The impugned order was passed after consideration of the explanation Annexure P. 2 given by him and also affording him opportunity by way of personal hearing on various dates. The term of the petitioner as Sarpanch has since expired and new election of the Panchayat was held, in the month of June, 1978. The learned Advocate -General on behalf of the respondents has argued that in view of this the writ has been rendered infructuous. He has placed reliance on Rameshwar Prasad Agarwaly v. A.K. Sinha : A.I.R. 1966 Pat 6. The petitioner in that case had applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a special resolution of the Municipal Commissioners but the force of the resolution had come to an end long before the petition came up for hearing. It was held that the application had become infructuous and no useful and effective writ of certiorari could or should be issued in respect of that resolution which had spent Its force.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the expiry of the term of the petitioner as Sarpanch and the new election of the Panchayat held in June, 1978 do not reader the writ infructuous because the impugned order of his removal continues to east a stigma on him.;