M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the Gram Panchayat of Village Birdhana, tehsil Jhajjar, district Rohtak. Petitioner No. 2 is a Panch who on account of the suspension of the Sarpanch was made an acting Sarpanch. The Sarpanch was suspended on some allegations of misconduct. Out of the nine members of the Panchayat, five had even passed a no -confidence motion against him, the Petitioner being one of them. The matter was regularly enquired into and the Deputy Commissioner, - -wide order Annexure P -7 ordered reinstatement of the Sarpanch. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the competent appellate authority which was dismissed. The appellate authority took the view that the complainant had no right either to get the Sarpanch suspended or file an appeal against the order revoking suspension. He further observed that the complainant also had no right to be associated in the enquiry. This has given rise to the present writ petition.
(2.) WE do not appreciate Petitioner No. 1 -Gram Panchayat coming forward to litigate the matter. In sum and substance, the litigation is on behalf of Petitioner No. 2, the Acting Sarpanch. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners justifyingly says that it is in essence a petition to voice grievance of Petitioner No. 2 relying as he is on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Saktu Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1988 (2) I.L.R. P & H 149. We are unable to accept his contention. The Full Bench and considered the question whether any notice need be given to the complainant before the revocation of the order of suspension. The Bench took the view that it was not. The Full Bench further observed that while dealing with the question, the validity of the order had to be kept apart, which was entirely different from the question whether notice shall be given to the complainant before ordering revocation of suspension. The Full Bench conceded the right to the complainant that even though he had not been given notice, he might have a right to question the order on the ground that there was no material for revoking the order on the ground that the same is mala fide but that was not to say that before ordering revocation, notice shall be issued to the complainant. It has thus expressly been ruled that a notice is not necessary to the complainant before recording an order of revocation of suspension. The revocation order might by itself given him a right to question it further on the limited ground of the order being mala fide. The object of giving notice to a party is to afford him an opportunity of being heard before any step is taken by a judicial or quasi -judicial authority. If the complainant is not to be given an opportunity of being heard and the revocation order can be passed in his absence, it logically follows that an appeal, which in the processtial law of our country is re -hearing of the original matter, cannot be filed by him on merits. Sofar as the impugned order declining to entertain the appeal of Petitioner No 2 is concerned , we do not find any fault with it: Challenge directly; by Petitioner No. 2 to this Court about the legality of the revocation order does not impress us because it is after a regular enquiry that the order of suspension was revoked and not at an interim stage. If the complainant has no right of hearing in an appeal on merits, how can he have such a right in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner as it appears to us is more keen to preserve his acting Sarpanchship on being a complainant in the case.
(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the petition in limine.;