Disposed

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023WRIC/40035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Kannauj, to take action against an Ex-Pradhan and Secretary for financial irregularities of Rs.6.97 lakhs identified after an enquiry, despite a prior direction to act which remained unimplemented for months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Magistrate, Kannauj to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the Rules made therein.

Ram Niwas Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40035 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Niwas Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶5

By means of this petition the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶6

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Kannauj to take further action in pursuance to the order dated 22.09.2021 by which pecuniary irregularities of Rs.6,97,748/- has been held by respondent no.2 against the accused ExPradhan/respondent no.4 and respondent No.5/Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat Thathiya, District Kannauj by considering/deciding the applications filed by the petitioner.

¶7

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Kannauj to decide the application with affidavit dated 06.10.2021 filed by the petitioner regarding corruption/embezzlement of Ex-Pradhan/respondent no.4 and respondent No.5/Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat Thathiya, District Kannauj."

¶8

It appears from the record that the petitioner had made a complaint supported by an affidavit against Sri Subhash Chandra/the elected Pradhan of Village Kuriyana, Post Thathiya, District Kannauj, wherein it was alleged that various amount drawn by the Pradhan has been misutilized. Inspite of the said affidavit, once the respondent authorities have not taken any step to redress the complaint of the petitioner then such situation has led the petitioner to approach this Court by preferring Writ C No.11310 of 2020 (Ram Niwas vs. State of UP and 3 others) and learned Single Judge had disposed of the said writ petition on 22.7.2020 permitting the petitioner to represent his grievance before the respondent no.2 within two weeks and the respondent no.2 was asked to get the matter verified and in case it is found that the complaint supported with affidavit has been filed against the elected Pradhan, he shall take necessary action, as warranted in law, keeping in view the provisions contained in U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry

¶9

Rules, 1997, within a further period of six weeks, thereafter, with further rider that it goes without saying that an adequate opportunity in accordance with the rules would be given to the fourth respondent and the authorities shall act, in accordance with the rules. Admittedly, such direction had not been complied with well within time. The petitioner had again approached before learned Single Judge by preferring Contempt Application (Civil) No.4553 of 2020 (Ram Niwas vs. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Collector/District Magistrate) in which notice was issued to the opposite party on 02.9.2021. Thereafter, an enquiry has been initiated by the District Magistrate, Kannauj by constituting a Three-Member Committee as well as Technical Team. After verifying the development works carried out by the Pradhan and other officials, it was found that there was a financial irregularities of Rs.6,97,748/- and accordingly, a notice was given by the District Magistrate, Kannauj on 22.9.2021 for its recovery as well as action against the Ex-pradhan and the Secretary.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner in this backdrop states that inspite of the said order, till date nothing has happened and no remedial measure had been taken by the respondents inspite of the order dated 22.9.2021.

¶11

Per contra, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised an objection that the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 is a self-contained Rules. She has placed reliance on Rules 256 to 260 in Chapter-XIII Surcharge Rules. She submits that if an order of surcharge is passed by the District Magistrate under Rule 256 against any Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Member of a Gram Panchayat and in case they are aggrieved they can file an appeal to the Commissioner of the Division within thirty days from the date on which such order is communicated to him and the Commissioner of the Division may confirm, rescind or vary the order passed by the District Magistrate or may pass such orders as he thinks fit. She submits that at present, she has no instruction that the said order has attained finality and aggrieved person has not approached to the Commissioner as per Rule 258 of the UP Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947.

¶12

We have heard rival submissions and perused the record.

¶13

The complaint of the petitioner has been considered by the respondents. There was substance in the complaint and accordingly, the order dated 22.9.2021 was passed by the District Magistrate, Kannauj. The Three-Member Committee as well as Technical Team have also been constituted in the matter, wherein

¶14

certain irregularities were found and accordingly, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the concerned Gram Panchayat Adhikari for recovery of Rs.6,97,748/- as well as action against the Ex-pradhan and the Secretary.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition asking the District Magistrate, Kannauj to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the Rules made therein, in case there is no other legal impediment in the matter.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 A Pandey/RKP

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajpal Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Aashish Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Manju Yadav Vs the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Mau and Another

C/M Waqf No. 51/110 Masjid Saudagrann Sabzi Mandi, Bahadurgang, Prayagraj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munshi Lal Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others