Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-This appeal pertains to actual relief which appears to be of academic interest and has little consequence to the parties. However, some facts need to be clarified before the case attains finality. 2. The petitioner-appellant was elected as Sarpanch in 1983 of Gram Panchayat, Gogunda and he continued to remain Sarpanch of said Gram Panchayat until 1988. In 1988, he lost election by 13 votes. After the petitioner had ceased to be Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gogunda for 6 years, he was served with a notice dated 22.08.1994 seeking explanation for certain allegations made against him for the purpose of holding enquiry in respect of certain matters which had arisen during his tenure as Sarpanch by Gram Panchayat Gogunda between 1983 to 1988. The said enquiry finally culminated by order dated 22.07.1999 by which it was recorded that the allegations which have been proved against the Ex-Sarpanch comes within the purview of abuse of authority and, therefore, by recording that finding the order was made for disqualifying the appellant from contesting further elections for 5 years. This order on the face of it appeared to be non-speaking order as it neither disclosed the allegations which have been made against the petitioner nor the finding which has been recorded in respect of those allegation. 3. Be that as it may, the order dated 22.07.1999 was subjected to challenge by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 170/2000, Dal Chand Purohit vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by order dated 4th April, 2000. 4. The Special Appeal No. 474/2000 against the said order was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 17.08.2001. The order dated 17.08.2001 reads as under:-"What is not denied is that the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with Rules. That being the position, Counsel for the respondents agrees that we set aside the order and the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Consequently, the order Annexure-5 is set aside, so also the order of learned Single Judge. The respondents will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. With these observations, this appeal stands allowed as indicated above. 5. Thus, the order dated 22.07.1999 ceased to be effective. Consequently, the order Annexure-5 is set aside, so also the order of learned Single Judge. The respondents will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. With these observations, this appeal stands allowed as indicated above. 5. Thus, the order dated 22.07.1999 ceased to be effective. The State Government was required in terms of the aforesaid order to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant in accordance with Rules of enquiry and thereafter come to its conclusion. However, the State Government on 31.08.2001 passed the following order:- ÞjktLFkku ljdkj iapk;rh jkt foHkkx Øekad % ,Q 3 ¼chds;½ ¼17½ tkap@mn;iqj] fnukad 31@8@2001 wj@94@6462&68 t;iq vknsk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk [k.M ihB Lisky vihy la[;k & 474@2000 Jh MkypUn iqjksfgr cuke ljdkj ds ekeys esa vihykFkhZ Jh MkypUn iqjksa fnukad 17 vxLr] 2001 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; dh vuqikyuk esfgr dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ grsq fnukad 23-08-2001 dks tfj;s jftLVMZ ,-Mh- uksfVl iszf "kr fd;k x;k ,oa fodkl vf /kdkjh ds ekQZr Hkh uksfVl dh rkehy tfj;s pLik djok;h x; hA O;fDrxr lquokbZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr fnukad 30-08-2001 dks u rks Jh MkypUn O;fDrk% mifLFkr gq, vkSj uk gh mudh vksj ls dksbZ izfrfuf /k mifLFkr gqvkA Jh MkypUn }kjk vius i{k esa dksbZ fyf [kr tokc vFkok vkosnu Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA vr% Li"V gS fd os vius i{k esa dqN ugha dguk pkgrs gaSA pwafd mDr Jh MkypUn ds fo#) foHkkxh; vknsk Øekad% 5485&91 fnukad 22-07-1999 }kjk ifjfu.kZ; ys[kc) fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% os 5 o"kZ rd dh dkykof /k rd bl vf /kfu;e ds v/khu ljiap pqus tkus ds ik= ugha Fks] ysfdu mUgksusa mDr rF; Nqikrs gq, xzke iapk;r xksxqUnk ds ljiap in dk pquko yM+k vkSj os fuokZfpr gq,A bl izdkj pwafd mDr Jh MkypUn iapk;rhjkt vf /kfu;e] 1994 dh /kkjk 19 ¼t½ ds rgr pquko yMus dh vgZrkvksa dks /kkfjr ugha djrs Fks] vr% os ljiap in ij cus jgus ds ;ksX; ugha gSaAvr% jkT; ljdkj iapk;rhjkt vf /kfu;e] 1994 dh /kkjk & 39 ds vUrxZa dk iz;ksr iznRr kfDr;ksx djrs gq, Jh MkypUn ljiap xzke iapk;r xksxqUnk iapk;r lfefr xksxqUnk ftyk mn;iqj dh lnL;rk lekIr dj ljiap dk in fjDr ? sf "kr djrh gSA jkT; ljdkj dh vkKk ls] ,l-Mh-voj lfpo] lfpo] jktLFkku] t;iqjAß 6. This order is subject matter of this writ petition and now in this appeal. 7. sf "kr djrh gSA jkT; ljdkj dh vkKk ls] ,l-Mh-voj lfpo] lfpo] jktLFkku] t;iqjAß 6. This order is subject matter of this writ petition and now in this appeal. 7. The tenor of the order shows that this order has been passed on assumption that Dal Chand was disqualified by order dated 22.07.1999 and thereafter he has contested an election while he was disqualified and has been elected. It is on that premise his membership of the Panchayat Gogunda was cancelled and his seat was declared vacated. 8. The order apparently was totally misconceived. On 31.08.2001, the order dated 22.07.1999 was not operative as it was already set aside by the Court on 17.08.2001. Secondly, it is apparent from the averments made in the petition that the petitioner was not holding the Membership of Panchayat Gogunda as Sarpanch or of any elected post. He has very clearly stated that on 31.08.2001, he petitioner was not holding any office of Sarpanch. Thus, there was no occasion for removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and declare the seat of Sarpanch vacated by making order dated 31.08.2001 by relying on the order dated 22.07.1999 which has been set aside by the Court on 17.08.2001. The order dated 17.08.2001 itself has been referred to in the impugned order dated 31.08.2001. Apparently, in order to pass fresh order in respect of the alleged charges, the State Government has assumed that notwithstanding he having been declared disqualified by order dated 22.07.1999, in spite of disqualification he has been elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, therefore, he needs to be removed from the office and office was declared vacated. The order clearly appears to be misconceived because the foundation of the order was order dated 22.07.1999 which had been set aside and was not operative on that date. 9. When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, it appears that attention of the learned Single Judge was not invited to this aspect at all as none was present on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was disposed of on the ground that fresh elections have already been held and since new Sarpanch had already taken charge, therefore, nothing survives in the matter and the inference about non-interest in pursuing the petition was drawn on the basis of non-appearance of Counsel for the petitioner on that date. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on 010.2001 without going into the merit of the submissions made in the writ petition or about the nature of the claim, yet commenting upon the merit of the order and petitioners diligence. Non-appearance of Counsel for his own reason cannot lead to inference of non-interest in pursuing of petition in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. The petitioner, in fact, has claimed that he may be allowed to contest the election notwithstanding the order dated 31.08.2001 because the respondents treated the order dated 4th April, 2000 which has been set aside by the Division Bench to be still in operation. Without divulging to these facts, the dismissal of the writ petition took place, because of apprehension in the mind of the petitioner appellant that disqualification continued into force, hence, the appeal has been preferred. 11. We are of the opinion in the aforesaid circumstances that since there was no order of disqualification in force when the order dated 31.08.2001 was made, the order was devoid of its substance. Moreover, the order itself becomes of academic interest inasmuch as the directions to remove the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and declaration of seat vacant on 31.08.2001 could not have been made. Be that as it may, since fresh election have been held in 2004 when the effect of order dated 12.02.2001 as well as order dated 31.08.2001 did not prevail. In these circumstances, no further directions are required to be given in this case. 12. The special appeal and application for restoration of writ petition are accordingly disposed of .