Disposed

Prahalad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024WRIC/2385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a notice from the Up Lok Ayukt seeking a reply to a complaint against the petitioner, a Gram Pradhan. The court held that taking cognizance appears to be without jurisdiction, staying the proceedings and citing a notification excluding Gram Pradhan inquiries.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 09.02.2024 and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof stood stayed pending filing of counter affidavits.

Prahalad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2385 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Prahalad

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amarendra Pratap Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1, 3 and 4 and Sri Abhilash Kumar Singh, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶9

Issue notice to opposite party no.5.

¶10

Steps to be taken within a week.

¶11

This petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 09.02.2024 issued by the Secretary to the Up Lok Ayukt, Uttar Pradesh, by which the petitioner has been informed that on the written complaint of opposite party no.5Indrajeet Singh, the Up Lok Ayukt has taken cognizance under Section 10(1)(a) of The U.P. Lokayukta and UpLokayuktas Act, 1975 and that certain issues have been framed, on which a reply should be given by the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging such notice dated 09.02.2024 on the ground that petitioner is an elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat of Village Bisawa. Vikas Khand Dhanpatganj, District Sultanpur. Opposite party no.5 had initially made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur under The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, on which the District Magistrate, Sultanpur had constituted a three member committee and the inquiry committee after taking the inquiry, submitted the inquiry report on 28.11.2022. In pursuance to such preliminary inquiry report, by an order dated 15.05.2023 the District Magistrate, Sultanpur

¶13

exercised his jurisdiction conferred under Section 95(1)(g) of The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and further nominated the District Horticulture Officer, Sultanpur and the Executive Engineer, Lok Nirman Vibhag Construction Division-III, Sultanpur for conducting the final inquiry in the matter.

¶14

Aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2023, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.4415 of 2023, Prahlad Vs. State of U.P. and others. This Court issued notice and granted time to file counter affidavit. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted his reply before the enquiry committee and a final enquiry report dated 16.06.2023 was submitted before the District Magistrate, Sultanpur.

¶15

All the allegations against the petitioner regarding irregularities relating to Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (Gramin) were considered by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, who by his order dated 30.09.2023 had lifted his interim direction seizing powers of the petitioner and the petitioner's functioning as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat concerned.

¶16

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that very same allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the complaint made by opposite party no.5 to the Lok Ayukt Administration. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of a notification issued by the Secretary of the Lok Ayukt Administration, Uttar Pradesh, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the powers of the Lok Ayukt Administration have been given, which relate to conducting of an inquiry against the public servants. In the said notification a mention has specifically been made that no enquiry against the Gram Pradhan shall be undertaken by the Lok Ayukt Administration.

¶17

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that perhaps the said notification has been issued in the light of the already existing rules namely, The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up

¶18

Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

¶19

This Court is, prima facie, of the opinion that taking of cognizance by the Up Lok Ayukt on a complaint relating to almost same facts made by opposite party no.5. against the petitioner, is without jurisdiction.

¶20

Sri Abhilash Kumar Singh has pointed out Section 11 of The U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975, which relates to evidence and is not relevant for the controversy, which has been raised by the petitioner in this petition.

¶21

List this petition on 14.05.2024.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, the impugned notice dated 09.02.2024 shall remain stayed and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of such notice shall also remain stayed.

¶23

In the meantime, opposite party no.2 as well as other opposite parties may file their counter affidavit.

¶24

Whenever the case is listed next, name of Sri Abhilash Kumar Singh will be shown in the cause list as counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

¶25

(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Rao/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prahalad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahalad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner, Deptt. of State Tax, Lucknow and Others

Dal Singar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abdulla @ Mo. Abdulla Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Shivendra Narain Sewak Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Ramchandra and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Cane Deptt. and 4 Others

Sanjay Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Distt. Magistrate Collector Distt. Gonda and 2 Others