Disposed

Smt. Chetna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj and 6 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2025WRIC/11534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Panchayat raj inquiry against pradhan; U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997; complaint unsupported by mandatory affidavit; four prior inquiries found allegations baseless; repetitive false complaints; inquiry limited to new points; District Magistrate Barabanki; Director Panchayat Raj U.P. letter dated 31.07.2025; writ petition disposed with directi

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Barabanki: no further action on the complaint unless the complainants file affidavit in support thereof; and, in case of repetitive false complaints,

Smt. Chetna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11534 of 2025

Smt. Chetna

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki whereby an inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner in furtherance of a complaint filed by the certain persons in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UPPradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on four earlier occasions, the complaints have been filed against the petitioner, upon which, inquiries were instituted and on each of the occasions, allegations were found to be baseless and the matter was closed. He has further submitted that repetitive complaints and inquires are causing undue hardship to the petitioner. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint in question is not supported by an affidavit which is mandatory.

¶12

On the basis of written instruction dated 02.12.2025 duly signed by the Additional Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that it is correct that on four earlier occasions, inquires were conducted against the petitioner in furtherance of the complaints filed against him and on all the occasions, complaints were found to be baseless. It is for this reason that the impugned order specifically states that the inquiry will be limited only to the new points, upon which, inquiry has not been held previously.

¶13

A copy of the aforesaid written instruction is taken on record.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has admitted that the complaint filed this time is not supported by any affidavit though it is mandatorily required to be supported by an affidavit.

¶15

WRIC No. 11534 of 2025

¶16

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Barabanki that no further action on the complaint shall be taken unless the complainants file affidavit in support of the complaint. In case, repetitive false complaints are being filed against the petitioner, the authority concerned shall take suitable action in this regard keeping in view the letter dated 31.07.2025 sent by the Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P. to all the District Magistrates. A copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No.15 to the writ petition.

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶19

December 3, 2025

¶20

V. Sinha

¶21

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

Smt. Chetna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chetna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj and 6 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

Pno NO.942491179,SUB Inspector Arshad Nadeem vs State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lko. and 2 Others

M/S I.T.Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd.Thru . Authorized Representative Ashish Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Rahul Dev and 2 Others vs Assl. Distt. and Sessions Judge /Special Judge Ec Act Room No 4 Sultanpur and 4 Others

Omkar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Deve. Lko and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Mishra and Another Vs Ram Pher and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs Distt. Magistrate / Collector Ambedkar Nagar and 4 Others