Disposed

Ram Dayal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Rural Developement Lko and 9 Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024WRIC/9021/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court did not hear the writ petition on merits. It dismissed the first prayer seeking execution of an order by the Deputy Commissioner, noting the High Court is not the executing body. To determine jurisdiction over the second prayer regarding embezzlement under the Panchayat Raj Act, the Registry was directed to submit a report on the division of work between Single and Division Benches befor

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to submit a report on jurisdictional division between Single and Division Benches relevant to the Panchayat Raj Act proceedings.

Ram Dayal Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9021 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Dayal Yadav

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Rural Developement Lko And 9 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Diksha Tiwari,Sanjana Upadhyay

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to opposite parties no. 1 to 7 to ensure the compliance of the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the opposite party no. 4- Deputy Commissioner (Upayukt) Laobur & Employment, District- Ambedkar Nagar and also a writ of mandamus to opposite party no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar to take legal action under Section 95(1)(G) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 against the opposite party no. 10Gram Pradhan on account of serious embezzlement of Government fund.

¶10

The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the executing body for execution of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Labour and Employment.

¶11

As regards the second relief there is a provision of complaint under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1997 which had already been filed by the petitioner, as informed and a show cause notice has been issued.

¶12

We are not inclined to consider the relief no. 1 for the reasons aforesaid, but, want to know from the Registry as to whether for relief no. 2 this writ petition would lie before the Division Bench and why not before the Single Judge Bench which has been assigned matters pertaining to the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

¶13

Let the Registry submit a detailed report in this regards as to what is the basis for division of work between the Misc. Single Bench and the Misc. Division Bench annexing therewith all relevant orders of the High Court in this regard as also with reference to the relevant provision and the Rules of the High Court. The report should be submitted by the next date.

¶14

The report shall also inform as to whether a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of proceedings under Section 95(1)(G) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 3 of the Rules, 1997 would lie before the Single Judge Bench or not. If not the reasons therefor, as, essentially relief no. 2 though phrased differently is for the said purpose.

¶15

List/ put up on 13.11.2024 as fresh.

¶16

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 R.K.P.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Dayal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Rural Developement Lko and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dayal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Rural Developement Lko and 9 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

Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Lucknow Vs M/S Reliance Industries Limited Somaiya Nagar Barabanki

Smt. Anjesh Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Backward Welfare Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. Thru. Auth. Officer Chandan Negi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 6 Others

Doodhnath vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and 2 Others

Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjeev Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Dept and Ors.

Farmeeda Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko. and 3 Others