JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. In light of the controversy involved in this petition and with the consent of the parties, the same is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. The petitioner, who was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Bhatoli Kalan in the year 2021, was placed under suspension by Deputy Commissioner, Solan, vide order dated 30.8.2025 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said order and on 16.09.2025, vide Annexure P-5, the Appellate Authority stayed the order of suspension. However, thereafter on 25.09.2025, the interim order stood vacated. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that the approach adopted by the Appellate Authority in this case, while deciding the application filed by the petitioner for grant of stay against the suspension order, is not sustainable in law. 5. In fact, when the Appellate Authority earlier had granted stay against the suspension order, then prudence demanded that thereafter the Appeal itself should have been heard on merit by the Appellate Authority. Rather than doing so, the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 25.09.2025, went on to decide the stay application and that too, by passing a lengthy order without realizing the effect and impact which said order would have on the main appeal itself. The Authority erred in not appreciating that as the petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority against the order of suspension, therefore, by revoking the interim stay granted earlier, the Appellate Authority in fact had rendered the Appeal itself infructuous. This is not expected from quasi-judicial Authorities, who have to be sensitive in cases like this one, wherein they are dealing with the matters of public representatives aggrieved by the order of suspension that too at the fag end of term. A slightly more pragmatic approach is required to be taken to ensure that public mandate is not interfered with lightly. 6. Therefore, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed by quashing order dated 25.09.2025, passed in Appeal No. 420/2025, with the direction to the Appellate Authority that it may go ahead and decide the Appeal itself on merit, in accordance with law. 6. Therefore, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed by quashing order dated 25.09.2025, passed in Appeal No. 420/2025, with the direction to the Appellate Authority that it may go ahead and decide the Appeal itself on merit, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that till the decision of the Appeal by Appellate Authority, the suspension order shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be allowed to perform her duties as the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. Bhatoli Kalan. 7. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.