Disposed

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2022WRIC/26919/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an administrative order appointing an officiating Gram Pradhan, the High Court did not interfere with the appointment. Instead, it disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioner to move a representation to the District Magistrate within two weeks for appropriate redressal.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to submit a representation ventilating grievances before the District Magistrate within two weeks for appropriate orders.

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26919 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Datta Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur/respondent No.2.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.2 appointed one Smt. Raj Mala as Officiating Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sarai Mahesh Block Shahabad Tehsil Shahabad District Rampur and directed to work as Officiating Gram Pradhan of the aforesaid Panchayat. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid exercise has been done by the respondent No.2 due to the fact that the Elected Pradhan namely Shiv Avtar of the aforesaid panchayat was sent to jail by 07.05.2022. It is argued that a meeting of the elected members of Gram Panchayat should be called by the respondent No.2, thereafter, Officiating Pradhan should be elected.

¶8

On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he should approach the respondent No.2 in place of approaching this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer to permit the petitioner to move a representation before the

¶10

respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievances.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances of the case and without interfering with the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Rampur within two weeks from today. If such representation is filed within stipulated period, the respondent No.2 will pass appropriate orders on the same strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months thereafter but after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶14

It is made clear that respondent No.2 will not be influenced by the order dated 05.08.2022 while passing the fresh order on the representation and the order dated 05.08.2022 will abide by the fresh order passed by respondent No.2.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 8.9.2022 saqlain

¶16

Digitally signed by SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER Date: 2022.09.08 15:07:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Baleshwar Prasad Mishra Vs Mr. Raj Pratap Singh Prin. Sec. Medical Education Lko.

Tuheeram Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Jay Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Iqubal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Perfect Apparels Inc. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Hori Lal and 22 Others Vs State of U P and Another