Dismissed

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2020WRIC/8152/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a temporary appointment of the Pradhan made without consulting Panchayat members who favored him. The Court observed that a fresh meeting to ascertain views was proposed, thereby addressing the grievance and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of as the grievance is addressed by proposing a fresh meeting to ascertain the views of Panchayat members.

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8152 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikrant Neeraj

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Vikrant Neeraj, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶6

This writ petition is directed against an order, dated 17.2.2020 contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, whereby respondent no. 4 has been temporarily appointed as Pradhan. The order is assailed on the ground that the members of Village Panchayat had passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner for officiating as Pradhan which has been ignored and without taking the opinion of the Panchayat Members the fourth respondent has been temporarily appointed as Pradhan. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Pushpendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (4) ADJ 348.

¶7

In view of the contentions so made this Court passed following order on 16.6.2020:-

¶8

"Learned counsel for the respondents may obtain instructions as to whether before passing the order under challenge the competent authority has ascertained views of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat concerned.

¶9

Put up as fresh on 17.6.2020."

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, there were serious allegation against the petitioner and he is otherwise brother of the elected Pradhan who has been removed. The District Magistrate has otherwise directed the Assistant Development Officer Panchayat Gangiri to hold a meeting and ascertain views of Panchayat Members and thereafter pass a fresh order for appointment of temporary Pradhan.

¶11

In view of the fact that fresh meeting is proposed to be convened for ascertaining views of members of Village Panchayat, the grievance of the petitioner stands duly addressed.

¶12

It goes without saying that after ascertaining views of the members an appropriate order would be passed within a period of four weeks from today keeping in view the law laid down by this court in Full Bench Judgment in the case of Pushpendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (4)

¶13

ADJ 348. The order impugned in the present writ petition shall remain subject to the fresh order to be passed, as indicated above.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.6.2020 Ranjeet Sahu

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmej Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganpati Self Help Group through Chairman Gyan Chand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nidhi Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another