JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a resident of village Sarund falling within the Gram Panchayat Sarund has prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction quashing the order dated 18th February, 1987 passed by the Government, whereby the Government revoked the order of suspension passed by it on 1st January. 1987. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that against respondent No. 2 Babu Lal Saini who is also an elected Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, there were certain allegations of acts of embezzlement t:f the Panchayat fund. A complaint, in this respect, was made by the petitioner to the Collector Jaipur instituted a perliminary inquiry. After considering the report of the preliminary inquiry, the Collector recommended the case for suspension of the Sarpanch under section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. fhe State Government after considering the report of the preliminary inquiry suspended respondent No.2 vide order dated 1st January, 1987. The order was passed under Section 17 (4A) of the said Act. After the passing of the suspension order, the charge of the office of the Sarpanch was taken over by Shri Hardwari Lai Sunar. 3. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that respondent No. 2. Babu Lal, had filed a writ petition in this Court against the suspension order dated 1st, January, 1987 and, prayed for staying of the operation of the order of suspension. In the said writ petition a conditional order was passed which was to the effect that in case the charge had not been taken over from respondent No.2, Babulal will continue as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The said writ petition was listed for a mission on 18th February, 1987. In the said writ petition, the petitioner, Hanuman Prasad, had made an application for being impleaded as a party to the writ petition. At the time of hearing. counsel for respondent No. 2 stated that t he Government has withdrawn the suspension order and consequently, Babu Lal, respondent No. 2 withdrew the writ petition. The order of suspension, as pointed out above, was withdrawn by the Government by order dated IKth February, 1987. The petitioner has challenged the order of revocation of the s spension order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order was passed without assigning any reason. The order of suspension, as pointed out above, was withdrawn by the Government by order dated IKth February, 1987. The petitioner has challenged the order of revocation of the s spension order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order was passed without assigning any reason. He has further submitted that the Government had applied its mind and it was after considering the entire case against respondent No. 2 that the order of suspension was passed by the Government against him. Shri Purohit, learned Deputy Government Advocate, has submitted that the Government had power to suspend a Sarpanch by invoking the statutory powers under Sec. I7(4A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. He further submits that a person who has power of suspension, undoubtedly has a right to withdraw the same and the Government has withdrawn the order of suspension as the said orders of suspension was challenged by respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. In the circumstances, which have been pointed out by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, we do not find that there is any mala fide in the order passed for withdrawing the suspension order. It is true that the power of withdrawal of the suspension order, though, inherent in the authority which could exercise the power of suspension, but such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. In this case, we are satisfied that the power of withdrawal has not been exercised arbitrarily since the order of suspension was challenged by respondent No. 2 in the writ petition and being prima facie satisfied this Court had issued stay order. 4. In the premises aforesaid, there is no mala fide in the order or arbitrariness as the State Government while withdrawing the order of suspension clearly directed that the inquiry will be continued. We thus, find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******