JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure P-15) by which the respondent no.6 has been reinstated as Sarpanch. Prior thereto an action had been taken against the said respondent and he had been withheld from operating as Sarpanch in view of the provisions of Section 5(2) of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The allegation against him was that he had failed to hold two consecutive meetings of Gram Sabha and in accordance with provisions of Section 5(2), he invites an automatic cessation from holding of office of Sarpanch. The petitioner is the complainant and is a Panch of the village upon whose initiation the said order was passed. 2. The facts of the case reveal that respondent no.6 had in fact entered upon the office of Sarpanch in July, 2008. Thereafter, a meeting was convened by him in December, 2008, since the first meeting of June, 2008 (after Hari crop) had elapsed. In July, 2009 he intended to hold another meeting but that was objected to by petitioner and other panchs because scheduled period of holding such meeting was June, 2009 and which had elapsed and consequently, the meeting could not be held. Plea was taken that two consecutive meetings were not held by respondent no.6. Therefore, he is considered to have ceased to be functional as Sarpanch which plea was initially accepted by the DDPO but in appeal filed by respondent no.6 before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat the same was accepted by virtue of the impugned order which is the cause of grievance of the petitioner. 3. Section 5(2) of the Act lays down that in the event of Sarpanch failing to hold two consecutive meetings he shall automatically cease to hold office from the last day of the month in which the second meeting was to be held. But clause 3 of Section 5 further goes on to state that the Director may reinstate such Sarpanch on showing his sufficient cause of default within a period of 30 days from the date of notification of his cessation as Sarpanch invited under Section 5(2). 4. But clause 3 of Section 5 further goes on to state that the Director may reinstate such Sarpanch on showing his sufficient cause of default within a period of 30 days from the date of notification of his cessation as Sarpanch invited under Section 5(2). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the meeting of December, 2008 was not a proper meeting and similarly, subsequent meeting of July, 2009 was never held and this amounts to a default on the part of respondent no.6 who did not hold two consecutive meetings of the Gram Sabha and thus cessation was justified and the order of the Deputy Director was not in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the material on record to show that he had entered upon office in July, 2008 which precluded him from holding meeting of Hari crop in June, 2008 but he subsequently hold meeting in December, 2008 and tried to hold meeting in July, 2009 which was prevented by the petitioner and a few other members of the Panchayat. He thus contended that it could not be said that he did not hold two consecutive meetings. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Respondent no.6 was required to hold two consecutive meetings in accordance with law. One was held in December, 2008 and other was attempted in July, 2009 which was thwarted by the petitioner himself. The scheme of the Act, in particular scheme of Section 5, visualizes an irregular situation and it is for the said purpose that Section 5(3) had been incorporated so that where a Sarpanch establishes sufficient cause of his default he can be reinstated. It is not that ipso facto that failure to hold two consecutive meetings would invite automatic cessation of the Sarpanch which cannot be subsequently revoked. Respondent no.6 according to the opinion of the Court has shown sufficient cause that in December, 2008 he had held one meeting even though it is disputed by the petitioner that it was not having sufficient coram and in July, 2009 attempted to hold meeting which was thwarted by the petitioner and a few members of the Panchayat. Respondent no.6 according to the opinion of the Court has shown sufficient cause that in December, 2008 he had held one meeting even though it is disputed by the petitioner that it was not having sufficient coram and in July, 2009 attempted to hold meeting which was thwarted by the petitioner and a few members of the Panchayat. Therefore, they cannot take benefit of their own conduct by first restricting respondent no.6 from holding a meeting in July, 2009 and then pleading that he be considered to have violated provisions of Section 5(2) on similar grounds. Meeting of December, 2008 also though irregular could not be held to be a non event so as to invite action under Section 5(2). The Director Rural Development and Panchayat in view of provisions of Section 5(3) has appreciated the facts in right perspective. No ground to interfere. Hence, dismissed. --------------