Smt. Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. parties particularly the opp. party no.2 i.e. Distt. Magistrate Sultanpur by directing him to dispose of the representation dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) submitted by the petitioner and to revive the Financial & Administrative Power of the petitioner as earlier.

¶13

2. Issue any other order or direction which the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the special circumstances of the case."

¶14

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Fatehpur Sangat, Block & Tehsil-Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur.

¶15

It is urged that the respondent authorities with a malafide intent have been harassing the petitioner.

¶16

In view of the repeated harassment, the petitioner had to approach this Court by means of the writ petition bearing Writ C no.9043 of 2024, however, the said writ petition of the petitioner came to be decided

¶17

WRIC No. 11010 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

alongwith connected Writ C no.5333 of 2025 by means of the judgment and order dated 28.08.2025 whereby in the petition of the present petitioner though it did not find favour with the Court, however, specific directions were issued to the respondents that the final inquiry if proceeding against the petitioner would be concluded positively within two months.

¶20

It is urged that though the said order was placed before the Authority concerned. Apart from the fact that the judgment of the High Court itself was passed after hearing the parties concerned yet the inquiry has yet not been concluded and more than two months have passed. It is a novel method adopted by the State Authorities to strict the elected members of his financial bars and then prolonged the inquiry so that the grievance or the petition may itself become infructuous.

¶21

Sri Rahul Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on behalf of the State Authorities has provided a copy of the written instructions under the signatures of District Magistrate-Sultanpur for perusal of the Court which is taken on record.

¶22

Having considered the aforesaid stand as well as the contents of the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by directing the respondent no.2 to ensure that the final inquiry is disposed of. It is also provided that proper notice and date of hearing would be communicated by the State Authorities to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of four weeks as already the time granted by the Court has lapsed. In case, if the petitioner does not cooperate even then that is not a ground for the Authorities to violate the orders passed by the Court.

¶23

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of and it is expected that the authorities shall be abide by the time lines as provided.

¶24

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶25

November 26, 2025 Harshita.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases