Santram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10966 of 2025

Santram

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. And 5 Others	Lko. .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	C.S.C.
Court No.- 17

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

¶9

Shri Pankaj Srivastava states that he has received instructions in the matter and as this Court does not propose to go into the correctness of allegations levelled against the petitioner and his reply, he does not propose to file a counter affidavit.

¶10

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi (wrongly mentioned as the order dated 28.10.2026) whereby the petitioner's financial and administrative powers as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat- Badauva, Development Block- Sursa, DistrictHardoi have been seized and a regular inquiry has been instituted to look into the allegations against the petitioner.

¶11

Initially, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on three points in which he was prima facie held guilty of making payment for laying inter-locking tiles on road whereas on the spot, there was a RCC road and no inter-locking tiles have been laid. The second point was that the most of the hand-pumps were in need of repairs but responsibility was not fixed upon any person in this regard. The third point was that some of the LED lights were found non-functional.

¶12

The second preliminary inquiry was conducted in which it was found that interlocking tiles were laid but no quotations were invited prior to procurement of the material. In this regard, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for works worth less than Rs.20,000/-, the process of quotation is not applicable. Regarding non-fixation of responsibility in hand-pumps in need of repairs, the inquiry report holds the Gram Pradhan and the Gram Panchayat Adhikari responsible. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner-Village Pradhan only and no proceedings have been

¶13

WRIC No. 10966 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

instituted against Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Regarding the third charge i.e. some of the LED lights being non-functional, explanation of the petitioner was that the lights have been purchased through an invoice dated 20.07.2022 and the inspection was made after two years. The lights purchased were branded lights and some of the lights having become non-functional after two years does not even prima facie establish the petitioner's guilt.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although while seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, it was directed that regular inquiry be concluded within 30 days, the inquiry has not yet commenced.

¶17

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the petition on the basis of instructions and he has submitted that an inquiry officer has been appointed to hold the final inquiry against the petitioner.

¶18

In these circumstances, it appears that the petitioner's explanation to preliminary inquiry report has merely been reproduced but it has not been dealt with in the impugned order. As inter-locking tiles were worth less that Rs.20,000/- for which no quotations are required, the LED lights were examined after two years since installation and although the petitioner and Gram Pranchayat Adhikari have been found guilty of non-fixation of responsibility in repair of hand-pumps, no proceedings have been instituted against the other guilty person, I am of the view that seizure of financial and administrative powers of the petitioner in these circumstances appears to be not justified.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda is set-aside only to the extent it seizes the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. However, the order, so far as it institutes a final inquiry against the petitioner, is maintained and it is provided that exercise of financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall abide by the final outcome of inquiry which shall be concluded within a period of 30 days from today.

¶20

November 20, 2025 -Amit K-

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶22

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

Santram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 5 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

Santram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 12 Others

Chhedan Lal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Lko.

Anuj Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ganesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko and 2 Others

The Lucknow District Basketball Association Thru. Hon Secy. Vs Deputy Registrar Chits Firms and Societies Vikas Deep Station Road Lko. and 2 Others