Hariram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayti Raj, Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Hariram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayti Raj, Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of operation of the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2025 till the next date of listing (19th March, 2025); notice issued to opposite party No.6; three weeks granted to opposite parties to file counter affidavit

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 3rd February, 2025 of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Raibareli restoring the powers of Pradhan to opposite party No.6 is sustainable despite his conviction entailing disqualification under Section 5-A(a) and (g) of the U.P. Panchcayat Raj Act 1947 +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner have force and require consideration; opposite parties granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit

Ratio / Principle

Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2025 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Raibareli shall remain stayed

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manish Mathur, J.), in WRIT - C No. 1569 of 2025 filed by Hariram, Incharge Pradhan, challenging the order dated 3rd February, 2025 of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Raibareli restoring the powers of Pradhan to opposite party No.6 (Rama Shankar). Opposite party No.6, elected Pradhan of the gaon sabha, was convicted on 17th August, 2024 in Session Trial No. 334/2008 arising out of case crime No. 48 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 504 IPC (police station Bachhrawan, District Raibareli) and was enlarged on bail on 10th January, 2025 in criminal appeal No. 2717 of 2024, the bail order not having stayed the conviction or sentence. Petitioner contends the conviction attracts disqualification under Section 5-A(a) and (g) of the U.P. Panchcayat Raj Act 1947 and that a reference to the prescribed authority under Section 6-A was required before restoration of powers. Court issued notice to opposite party No.6, granted opposite parties three weeks to file counter affidavit, listed the matter for 19th March, 2025, and stayed operation of the impugned order till the next date of listing.

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1569 of 2025

Petitioner :- Hariram

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayti Raj, Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel for opposite party No.5.

Issue notice to opposite party No.6.

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 3rd February, 2025 whereby powers of Pradhan, which was seized earlier by the opposite party No.6 have been restored.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier the opposite party No.6, Rama Shankar was elected pradhan of the gaon sabha but was subsequently convicted by means of judgment and order dated 17th August, 2024 passed in Session Trial No. 334/2008 arising out of case crime No. 48 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 504 IPC registered in police station Bachhrawan, District Raibareli.

He further submits that impugned order has been passed only on the ground that in criminal appeal No. 2717 of 2024 instituted against his conviction, the opposite party No.6 has been enlarged on bail by means of order dated 10th January, 2025.

It is submitted that once the opposite party No.6 has been convicted as indicated herein above, he suffers the disqualification indicated in Section 5-A(a) and (g) of the U.P. Panchcayat Raj Act 1947 and therefore there was no occasion for passing of impugned order restoring the powers of Pradhan upon him.

He has also adverted to provisions of Section 6-A of the Act to submit that prior to restoring powers of pradhan upon the opposite party No.6, it was incumbent upon authority to have made a reference to the prescribed authority in terms of Section 6-A particularly since this Court while granting bail to the opposite party No.6 has not stayed either the conviction or the sentence.

It is also submitted that the consequence to seizure of powers of opposite party No.6, the petitioner was made the Incharge Pradhan.

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted three weeks time to file their counter affidavit.

List this case on 19th March, 2025 alongwith service report.

Till next date of listing, operation of impugned order dated 3rd February, 2025 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Raibareli shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 prabhat

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