Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. Elections to the Nagar Panchayat, Dirba were held on June 7, 2000. The petitioner was elected as a member of the aforesaid Nagar Panchayat. Later on, in an election held on July 20, 2000, the petitioner was elected as president of the aforesaid Nagar Panchayat. 2. A proposal was mooted by the aforesaid Nagar Panchayat, Dibra for locating the bus stand at a new place. Accordingly, a notice was published in the local newspaper inviting proposals. Various proposals were received by the Nagar Panchayat. One of the proposals was from Mehar Singh son of Bakshi Singh, who was the grand-father of petitioner, Darshan Singh. After taking into consideration, the various proposals, the proposal sent by aforesaid Mehar Singh was accepted and vide a resolution dated March 21, 2001, the land belonging to Mehar Singh grand-father of the petitioner was approved for locating the new bus stand. Subsequently, on September 2, 2002, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, whereby it was brought to his notice that since he had participated in the meeting in which resolution dated March 21, 2001 had been passed by the Nagar Panchayat and since aforesaid Mehar Singh was his grand-father, therefore, the participation of the petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings of Nagar Panchayat was in violation of the Rules. 3. The petitioner submitted a reply dated September 6, 2002. It was claimed by him that he had not participated when the aforesaid item was taken up for discussion, although the aforesaid fact had not been noticed in the minutes of the meeting. It was also claimed that even otherwise as per Rule 7 of Punjab Municipal General Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") there was no violation nor any misconduct of any kind inasmuch, as the relationship of a member and his grand-father was not included in the said provisions. 4. After receipt of the aforesaid reply and after hearing the petitioner and all other concerned persons, the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, respondent No. 1 had passed an order dated June 7, 2004, vide which it had been held that petitioner, Darshan Singh, had willfully violated the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules, by attending the meeting on March 21, 2001 and participating in voting on resolution No. 98 in which he has a direct interest. Consequently, in exercise of the powers under Section 16(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 , the petitioner was ordered to be removed from the office of Nagar Panchayat, Dirba, and further he was disqualified from contesting the election as member of Nagar Panchayat for a period of five years. A copy of the order dated June 7, 2004 has been appended as Annexure P-14 with the present petition. 5. The petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition impugning the aforesaid order Annexure P/1. 6. A written statement had been filed by Regional Deputy Director, Local Government, Patiala, respondent No. 2. Shrimati Sukhpal Kaur who had been elected as the Acting President of the Nagar Panchayat after the removal of the petitioner and who had been impleaded as a party in the present petition as respondent No. 3, has also filed a written statement. Both aforesaid respondents have relied upon the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules. Additionally, respondent No. 3 has attempted to bring on record various other instances and it has been claimed that the petitioner in fact had misconducted on various occasions and was not a fit person to remain as a President of the Nagar Panchayat. 7. We have heard Shri M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 8. Shri M.S. Khaira, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has primarily contested the validity of the order Annexure P/1 by relying upon provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules. It has been contended that as per the language of the aforesaid provision, a member of a Committee was required not to participate in a matter in which such member, either of his parents, or descendants of such member or descendant of any parent of such member, or descendant or parent of the husband or wife of such member or descendant of such parent last referred to has a direct or indirect interest. Accordingly, it has been contended that the grandparents of a member were not included in the list of relations regarding which there was a prohibition. Accordingly, it has been contended that the grandparents of a member were not included in the list of relations regarding which there was a prohibition. Consequently, it has been argued that the order Annexure P/1 was in violation of Rule 7 of the Rules and was totally contrary to law and legally not sustainable. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the order Annexure P/1. It has been argued that the petitioner while participating in the meeting dated March 21, 2001, wherein a proposal for re-locating the bus stand on the land of Mehar Singh, grand-father of the petitioner was under consideration, the petitioner had misconducted himself. According to the learned State counsel, the petitioner had a direct interest in the said land. It has also been brought to our notice that the grand-father of the petitioner, namely, Mehar Singh had died on July 17, 2002 and upon his death his property, including the land in question, had by operation of law, devolved upon his two sons i.e. Tara Singh and Meva Singh. Tara Singh is father of the petitioner. Thus, an attempt has been made to argue that petitioner, not only had a direct interest, but the interest of his father was also involved. 10. Having duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the present petition deserves to succeed. 11. At this stage, we may notice the language of Rule 7 of the Rules as follows" "Rule 7: Members not to take part in proceedings in certain cases.- Section 240(1)(zz): No member of Committee shall be present or vote at or take any other part in any proceedings of a committee or Sub-Committee relating to a matter in which such member, either of his parents, or descendants of such member, or descendant of any parent of such member, or descendant or parent of the husband or wife of such member of descendant of such parent last referred to has a direct or indirect interest." A perusal of the aforesaid rule clearly shows that certain category of relations have been enumerated and it has been provided that in a case where the member has any interest or any of the relations of the aforesaid member has any interest, then the aforesaid member of the Committee shall not participate and vote. However, grandparents have not been included in the list of the relations. It is, thus, clear that the action against the petitioner, for participating in the meeting dated March 21, 2001, has been taken totally contrary to the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules. Even if it be taken, as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents, that aforesaid Mehar Sigh had died subsequently on July 17, 2002 and his property had devolved upon the father of the petitioner and his uncle, still the participation of the petitioner in the meeting dated March 21, 2001 i.e. much earlier than the death of Mehar Singh, would not change the situation at all. It is apparent that respondent No. 1 has completely misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules and as such has fallen into an error while removing the petitioner from the office of the President of the Nagar Panchayat and further disqualifying him from contesting the election. 12 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present petition and set aside the order Annexure P/1 dated June 7, 2004 with the result that the petitioner shall be deemed to be the member and the President of Nagar Panchayat, Dirba and election/nomination of any Acting President in his absence would be deemed to be of no effect.