JUDGMENT MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat elections, the following members were elected as Panches of Gram Panchayat of village Kang. District Hoshiarpur: i) Gurmej Kaur w/o Harban Singh, SC (woman) ii) Paramjit Kaur w/o Sucha Singh (woman) iii) Harbhajan Singh s/o Rulia Ram (SC) iv) Dhanpal s/o Chanan Singh (General) v) Gurmukhdas s/o Joga Singh (General) 2. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for scheduled caste category. The petitioner claimed that as he belongs to scheduled caste category and no other name was proposed, therefore, he was duly elected as Sarpanch in the meeting held on 16.7.2008, in the category of scheduled caste, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter to be referred as “the Act”). The name of the petitioner was also notified as Sarpanch in scheduled caste category, vide notification dated 6.8.2008 ( Annexure P2). 3. The case set up by the petitioner, in brief in so far as relevant, was that after the decision dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure P3) of this Court rendered in CWP No.14927 of 2008, (wherein it was held that the woman elected to the post of Panch against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste Women, was fully eligible to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes category, being a 'woman' belonging to Scheduled Caste), Panch Gurmej Kaur (respondent No.6) made representation dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure P4) to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya, stating therein that although she was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Kang in the meeting held on 16.7.2008, but the Presiding Officer has wrongly sent the name of the petitioner for notification. A similar application dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure P5) was given to Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. As the representations were not decided, therefore, she filed CWP No.17125 of 2008 with a prayer that she be declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. A similar application dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure P5) was given to Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. As the representations were not decided, therefore, she filed CWP No.17125 of 2008 with a prayer that she be declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On issuance of notice of motion, respondent No.1 issued a corrigendum dated 4.12.2008 (Annexure P7), substituting her (respondent No.6) name as Sarpanch in place of the petitioner, without holding any inquiry as to whether she was actually elected as Sarpanch or not and issuing any notice of hearing to him (petitioner) in this regard. 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned notification/corrigendum (Annexure P7), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, on the grounds that the same is illegal, arbitrary, void, inoperative and violative of principles of natural justice. 5. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 filed their joint written statement, while respondent No.6 filed her separate written statement-, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, locus standi and cause of action of the petitioner. On merits, according to the contesting respondents that although Smt. Gurmej Kaur (respondent No.6) was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Kang in the meeting held on 16.7.2008, but due to rush of work, the name of the petitioner was wrongly sent for notification as Sarpanch. When the mistake came to the notice, BDPO, Dasuya (respondent No.5) sent a letter to DDPO for de-notification of the name of the petitioner and instead notifying the name of Gurmej Kaur (respondent No.6) as Sarpanch of the village. Accordingly, correct notification was re-notified and respondent No.6 was declared as Sarpanch. The petitioner was stated to have never been elected as Sarpanch of the village. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Assailing the impugned corrigendum (Annexure P7), the learned counsel for the petitioner contended with some amount of vehemence that respondent No.6 was never elected as Sarpanch of the village, but her name was wrongly substituted as Sarpanch in place of the petitioner without holding any inquiry, issuing any notice and opportunity of hearing to him (petitioner). 6. Assailing the impugned corrigendum (Annexure P7), the learned counsel for the petitioner contended with some amount of vehemence that respondent No.6 was never elected as Sarpanch of the village, but her name was wrongly substituted as Sarpanch in place of the petitioner without holding any inquiry, issuing any notice and opportunity of hearing to him (petitioner). Hence, according to him, the impugned corrigendum (Annexure P7) is void, ab initio and illegal. 7. On the contrary, hailing the impugned corrigendum (Annexure P7), the learned counsel for the respondents argued that since the name of petitioner was wrongly notified as Sarpanch, by way of notification (Annexure P2), therefore, the same was subsequently rectified, by means of impugned corrigendum (Annexure P7) and no interference is warranted in it in this behalf. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 9. What is not disputed here is that post of Sarpanch was reserved for scheduled caste category. The petitioner was elected as Panch in scheduled caste category, while Gurmej Kaur (respondent No.6) was also elected as Panch in scheduled caste (woman) category. A Division Bench of this Court, by virtue of judgment (Annexure P3) rendered in CWP No.14927 of 2008 has ruled that “a female, who was elected to the post of Panch against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste Women, is fully eligible to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes category, being a 'woman' belonging to Scheduled Caste.” 10. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner was initially elected as Sarpanch in reserved category of scheduled caste in the meeting held on 16.7.2008 and his name was forwarded and was notified as such, vide notification (Annexure P2). In the wake of notice in CWP No.17125 of 2008 filed by respondent No.6, the concerned official respondent appears to have become panicky and without issuing any show cause notice and conducting any inquiry as to whether respondent No.6 was actually elected as Sarpanch or not illegally and in an arbitrary manner removed/de-notified the name of petitioner and ex parte included/notified the name of respondent No.6 as Sarpanch without any valid election, by virtue of impugned corrigendum (Annexure P7). Once the petitioner was duly elected, then the official respondents did not have the jurisdiction to ex parte remove his name and to include the name of respondent No.6 as Sarpanch in an arbitrary manner, that too, even without issuing any show cause notice and giving complete go-bye to the rules and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned corrigendum (Annexure P7) cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the instant case, it is a matter of serious dispute, as to whether any election for the post of Sarpanch was held in the meeting dated 16.7.2008 or not? According to the petitioner, he was elected as Sarpanch in the said meeting and duly notified, vide notification (Annexure P2), while the official respondents claimed that Gurmej Kaur (respondent No.6) was duly elected as Sarpanch, but the name of petitioner was wrongly sent for notification due to rush of work. Therefore, taking into consideration the crux of the deep controversy involved in the instant petition, to me, it would be expedient in the interest of justice and fair play and justice would be sub-served if the fresh election is held for the post of Sarpanch of the village, under the present set of circumstances. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned notification/corrigendum (Annexures P2 and P7) are hereby quashed. The official concerned respondents are directed to convene a meeting to duly elect a new Sarpanch on the basis of majority, in accordance with law within a period of one month positively from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.