Disposed

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2025WRIC/1485/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a show cause notice for removal proceedings against a Gram Pradhan, arguing no decision for a regular enquiry had been taken per the 1997 Enquiry Rules. The court held objections could be raised before the District Magistrate and disposed of the petition with liberty to do so.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to raise objection before the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, who must pass an order before proceeding further.

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8641

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1485 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rahul Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhakar Shukla,Vivek Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present writ petition arises out of a show cause notice issued under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner a show cause notice has been issued for filing reply contemplating an action under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner has filed his reply before the concerned authority, however, objection of the petitioner is that show cause notice itself is not in accordance with the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after a preliminary enquiry submitted under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1997 the decision has to be taken that the enquiry is required to be carried on against the Gram Pradhan and thereafter the show cause notice is required to be given. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such decision has been taken by the Authority for regular enquiry against the petitioner and as such at this stage the show cause notice may be not be tenable.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that if show cause notice is issued to petitioner, the petitioner has a remedy to raise his objection before the authority concerned.

¶8

It is to be seen that the present writ petition arises out of a show cause notice. Further this Court is of the opinion that since there is only a show cause notice, the petitioner can very well raise the aforesaid objection mentioned above before the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise objection before the District Magistrate, Kanpur

¶10

Nagar. If any such objection is raised, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar shall be obliged under law to pass an order prior to proceeding further in the matter.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 VMA

¶12

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Krashan Pal Alias Krishan Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niyaz Been vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Rinki Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramjanam Banvasi vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt. Ganga Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others