Dismissed

Smt. Reeta Verma Alias Reeta Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024/5546/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a notice requiring the petitioner, an elected pradhan, to submit accounts for public funds under the Mukhya Mantri Panchayat Protsahan Puraskar scheme. The Court dismissed the writ, holding that public fund expenditure must be accounted for and noting the notice did not violate any specific statutory provision, granting a brief extension to comply.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; one week's time granted to comply with the impugned order.

Smt. Reeta Verma Alias Reeta Chaudhary Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45652

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5546 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Reeta Verma Alias Reeta Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikha Srivastava,Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K. Singh Kalhans, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is an elected village pradhan of village Chingi, Village Panchayat- Tulsipur, Block Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar and was elected in 2021.

¶7

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to a notice issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar on 06.06.2024 directing the petitioner to produce all the papers and accounts which relate to the expenditure done by him for the financial year 2022-2023 for the said gram panchayat under the Mukhya Mantri Panchayat Protsahan Puraskar.

¶8

Under the said scheme Rs. 11 lakhs were given to the petitioner and several letters were written to him to submit the details of the work done by him and the amounts spent by him, duly certified by the Chartered Accountant along with the photographs indicating the execution of the said work.

¶9

It seems that the petitioner had not complied with the previous direction and consequently he has been directed to submit all the papers within a period of 15 days from the date of said order, failing which proceedings would be initiated under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has not responded to the aforesaid letter and has filed present writ petition assailing the same. He submits that the said notice can be issued only under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayataraj Rules, 1947 for levying of the surcharge after a report has been submitted by the Auditor, Office of Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayat stating that loss has been caused by negligence or misconduct by the pradhan.

¶11

He further submits that present notice has been issued under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 and on this count also it is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He submits that though the heading in the show cause notice indicates to the same under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 but in sums and substance and a perusal of the said notice would clearly indicate that it has has been stated that only when the petitioner fails to comply with the said notice and does not furnish the documents sought from him with regard to execution of the work under the scheme or that his explanation is found to be insufficient or unsatisfactory then proceeding under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 shall be initiated.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, there is no doubt that present notice is not under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 but merely directing the petitioner to summit the documents with regard to scheme wherein 11 lakhs were given during financial year 2022-23 and for execution of works pertaining to E-gram Swaraj works etc. This Court is of the considered view that money which is given to the gram pradhan for execution of the development of the gram panchayat are public fund and he is under a mandate to duly maintain the accounts with regard to the said work and has to submit his report with regard to the manner in which the money has been paid while executing the said work.

¶14

He cannot evade accountability merely on technical grounds and even a perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the same is neither under Section 27 of U.P. Panchayatraj Act inasmuch as no finding has been recorded against the petitioner with regard to his ignorance or misconduct nor is the aforesaid notice under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 inasmuch as the impugned notice clearly provides that proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 would be initiated only in case petitioner does not furnish documents sought or his explanation is found to be unsatisfactory.

¶15

Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. Any person who is spending public fund is under a mandate to justify the expenditure incurred by spending the aforesaid amount and petitioner being a pradhan cannot be exempted from the aforesaid responsibility. From the aforsaid reasons, no ground for interference is made out. According the writ petiton is dismissed .

¶16

After aforesaid order has been passed, learned counsel for petitioner submits that time may be extended. Accordingly, one week's time from today is granted to the petitioner to comply with the impugned order dated 06.06.2024.

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 Ravi/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Reeta Verma Alias Reeta Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reeta Verma Alias Reeta Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ashiya Begum Vs U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Another

Sakiya Begum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Smt. Gudiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow and Others

Km. Rushda Parveen Thru. Her Mother Atiya Parveen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Education Secondary, Lucknow and Others

Aseem Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Reeta Verma Alias Reeta Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 2 Others