Disposed¶14

Subash Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025WRIC/34088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 12-J; U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; Gram Pradhan; Gram Panchayat; District Magistrate Jaunpur; nomination of member to look into affairs; Smt. Swarnima; representation pending; disposed at admission stage; writ petition not interfered with; decision on representation within two months; Allahabad High Court; Court No. 6; Prakash Padia; WRIT - C No. 34088 of 2025; September 25, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to the petitioner to place all his grievances by way of a representation before respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Jaunpur) within three weeks, with respondent no.2 directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law within two months thereafter; the challenged order was left undisturbed. ¶14

Subash Chandra Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur pursuant to Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (nomination of Smt. Swarnima to look into the affairs of the Gram Pradhan) is bad in the eyes of law.

¶8

Court's answer

As nothing was stated in the writ petition and no argument was raised on the circumstances under which the order of 11.07.2025 was bad in law, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Without interfering with the challenged order, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of counsel, permitting the petitioner to place all his grievances before respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Jaunpur) by way of a filed representation within three weeks.

¶14

Key takeaways

Respondent no.2 was directed to decide the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.; decided September 25, 2025), WRIT - C No. 34088 of 2025 (Subash Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others): the writ petition challenged the order dated 11.07.2025 of the District Magistrate, Jaunpur passed pursuant to Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, whereby, after the elected Gram Pradhan was sent to jail, Smt. Swarnima (wife of Sujeet Kumar Maurya), a member of the Gram Panchayat, was nominated to look into the affairs of the Gram Pradhan. Since neither the writ petition nor any argument identified circumstances rendering the order bad in the eyes of law, the petition was liable to be dismissed; instead, with consent of counsel it was disposed of at the admission stage itself without interfering with the challenged order. The petitioner was permitted to file a representation placing all his grievances before respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Jaunpur) within three weeks, and respondent no.2 was directed to decide that representation strictly in accordance with law within two months thereafter.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 34088 of 2025

¶3

Subash Chandra Yadav

¶4

	.....Petitioner(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rakesh Kumar Singh, Sanjay Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No.- 6

¶5

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶6

The order dated 11.07.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Jaunpur/respondent no.2 pursuant to the provisions contained under Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶7

By the aforesaid order, after the elected Gram Pradhan was sent to jail one Smt. Swarnima wife of Sujeet Kumar Maurya, member of Gram Panchayat was nominated to look into the affairs of the Gram Pradhan.

¶8

Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been raised that under what circumstances the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 11.07.2025 is bad in the eyes of law. In this view of the matter, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

At this point of time, it is argued by counsel for the petitioner that objection submitted by the petitioner against the aforesaid order is pending consideration before the respondent no.2 hence respondent no.2 be directed to pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid representation.

¶10

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, without interfering with the order, which is under challenge, present writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to place all his grievances as has been raised in

¶12

WRIC No. 34088 of 2025

¶13

¶14

the present writ petition by way of filing of representation before the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Jaunpur within three weeks from today. If it is so the respondent no.2 is directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months, thereafter.

¶15

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶16

September 25, 2025

¶17

Pramod Tripathi

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subash Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kishor vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aneesh Kumar Sonkar vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrawan Nigam vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devendra Kumari Pathak vs State of U.P. and 4 Others