JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner has approached this Court to impugn Show Cause Notice, Annexure P-6. Vide Annexure P-6, the petitioner was simply asked to explain why action should not be taken against her under section 51 (1) of Panchayati Raj Act and why she should not be suspended from the post of Panchayat. She was required to file reply within 7 days as otherwise exparte proceedings were to be initiated. 2. While issuing notice of motion on 01.11.2011, the operation of the impugned order, Annexure P-6, was stayed till further orders. 3. Reply, in this case, has been filed. Mr. Nehra points out that the writ petition is filed against Show Cause Notice and hence premature. It is also stated that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true facts. Reply would disclose that the Government has framed policy to allot plots of 100 sq. yards to the landless persons of the respective villages with intention to help the said persons to construct the residential houses. Accordingly, the concerned Sarpanches including the Sarpanch of village Mandkol, Tehsil and District, Palwal were directed to allot 100 plots to eligible landless persons. The procedure was adopted by all Gram Panchayats and by District Administration. The relevant part of the instructions are reproduced. 4. Since the petitioner being Sarpanch was not following the policy instructions issued by the Government in executing the sale deeds for transfer of 100 sq. yards plot in the name of landless persons, she was issued show cause notice. She has already filed reply to the show cause notice and final order is yet to be passed. 5. It is pointed out that the policy framed by the State Government has already been upheld by this Court. Accordingly, it is urged that the petitioner/Sarpanch cannot act in violation of the said policy and, in case, she does so, she can certainly be directed to comply with the policy of the State. 6. The petitioner has disclosed that the sale deeds of the plots could not be executed as there was stay by the civil Court. All these issues would require consideration and would invite attention of the respondents while passing of the order. Since the petitioner has approached this Court against the show cause notice, the writ petition is premature. 6. The petitioner has disclosed that the sale deeds of the plots could not be executed as there was stay by the civil Court. All these issues would require consideration and would invite attention of the respondents while passing of the order. Since the petitioner has approached this Court against the show cause notice, the writ petition is premature. State counsel has relied on order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.4587 of 2011 titled as Naresh Kumar versus State of Haryana and others decided on 05.08.2011 to urge that the writ petition at this stage is premature. Since the writ petition is directed against the show cause notice only, the petitioner has to respond to the notice and would have cause if any adverse order is passed. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as premature. However, if any adverse order is passed against the interest of the petitioner that shall not be implemented for four weeks from the date of passing of the order to enable the petitioner to challenge the said order before any appropriate Forum. ---------0.B.S.0------------