JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, ACJ.(Oral) Caveat Petition No.207 of 2019: Allowed and discharged. CMP No.5309 of 2019: Allowed and disposed of. CWP No.1302 of 2019: Notice. Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, learned counsel, appear and accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4/Caveator, respectively. 2. The order dated 27.05.2019, Annexure P-3, passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur, District Kinnaur, H.P., has been sought to be quashed and set aside by filing this writ petition. 3. It is seen that vide impugned order, the petitioner has been removed from the office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Panvi, Development Block, Nichar, District Kinnaur, on the grounds of alleged misuse of power and misappropriation of funds by him. 4. Admittedly, the remedy against the impugned order available to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Panchayati Raj Act, is by way of filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He already preferred an appeal (Annexure P-4) before learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, however, the complaint is that learned Divisional Commissioner has not taken up the same, alongwith the application for interim order, at an early date. The grouse of the petitioner in this regard has been highlighted in Paras 21 to 23 of the writ petitioner, which read as follows:- “21. That the petitioner filed the statutory appeal before respondent No.2 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure P-3) with a request for immediate listing of the appeal. However, it was informed that respondent No.2 was not available in office unit 10.06.2019 and that a fresh request ought to be made on that date. Respondent No.3 was again stated to be not in office on 10.06.2019. A copy of the memo of appeal preferred before respondent No.2 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-4. 22. That the dealing hand at the office of respondent No.2 pointed out that a request was required to be made directly before respondent No.2 to list the matter expeditiously. 23. That the counsel for the petitioner personally requested respondent No.2 in his chambers to take up the matter the following day i.e. on 13.06.2019 since there was also an application for interim relief. However, the request was denied citing the latter’s busy schedule. It was, however, stated that earliest possible date can be sought from the dealing hand in the facts and circumstances. However, the request was denied citing the latter’s busy schedule. It was, however, stated that earliest possible date can be sought from the dealing hand in the facts and circumstances. The dealing hand on his part expressed inability to list the case before 04.07.2019 as there were already 75-80 cases listed on every court day and that their schedule was already overloaded. Upon repeated request also the petitioner counsels’ was not accommodated and the matter was next listed for 04.07.2019.” 5. We are not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Divisional Commissioner due to which he has failed to take up the matter for hearing at an early date, because when the said authority has been discharging the functions, quasi-judicial in nature, is expedited to be prompt and quick in discharging the same that too in a case like the present one where the petitioner (an elected Pradhan) has been removed from his office vide order under challenge. We, therefore, direct the Divisional Commissioner to take up the appeal within three days from today for passing an appropriate order and dispose of the application for the interim within a week thereafter. We expect from the said respondent even to decide the appeal also on or before 31st October, 2019. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy ‘ Dasti’.