JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner has made grievance about the order passed by the State Govt. revoking its earlier order of suspension of respondent no.5 Sarpanch on the ground that he was acquitted by the criminal court on the same charges which he was facing in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner, who claims to be a Ward Panch, who is holding the charge of Sarpanch, has no lucus standi to file this petition. He is only holding the charge of Sarpanch that does not mean that he should continue to hold the charge of Sarpanch, who was elected by people. 2. Apart from the question of locus standi, an attempt is made by Mr. Jakhar to argue that the order of the State Govt., is without jurisdiction. This submission of Mr. Jakhar has no substance. The State Govt. has always inherent jurisdiction to revoke its earlier order in view of the subsequent events taking place in the matter. The Supreme Court judgment cited by learned counsel Shri Jakhar reported in AIR 1996 SC 3069 has no relevance whatsoever to the facts of this case, therefore, I have refrained myself from dealing the same in detail. The Court has to see whether the Govt. has exercised its powers fairly or not. The Court can interfere only when there is arbitrariness in exercise of powers, otherwise not.In view of the above discussion; this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******