Disposed¶18

Shiv Swaroop Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2025WRIC/35338/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Pradhan financial and administrative powers seized; Section 95(1)(g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947; District Magistrate order 3.5.2025; Gram Panchayat Mahulani Uska Bazar Siddharth Nagar; hand-pumps unrepaired contaminated water; forged bills measurement book Junior Engineer; petitioner admits signing bills; formal enquiry completed expeditiously; reasoned and speaking order within one month; writ disposed; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to make all efforts to complete the formal enquiry expeditiously and pass a reasoned and speaking order pursuant to it, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. ¶18

Shiv Swaroop Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere, at this stage, with the order dated 3.5.2025 of respondent no.2 (District Magistrate) seizing the petitioner's financial and administrative powers as Gram Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Court found no good reason to interfere, at this stage, with the District Magistrate's order dated 3.5.2025 seizing the petitioner's financial and administrative powers.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Six of eight hand-pumps had not been repaired and were still giving contaminated water; since the petitioner admits signing the bills even though money had been withdrawn, he cannot deny that an attempt had been made to withdraw money for repair of hand-pumps; these allegations require proper enquiry.

¶17

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of with direction to respondent no.2 to make all efforts to complete the formal enquiry expeditiously and pass a reasoned and speaking order pursuant to it, in accordance with law, the exercise to be completed within one month from presentation of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶18
The Court expressly made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar, J.), WRIT-C No. 35338 of 2025, decided 16 December 2025 — Shiv Swaroop Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others: The petitioner, Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mahulani (Block Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar), challenged respondent no.2's (District Magistrate's) order dated 3.5.2025 seizing his financial and administrative powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, passed after enquiry into alleged non-repair of hand-pumps and forwarding of allegedly forged bills. The Court found from the enquiry report and the order that six of eight hand-pumps had not been repaired and were still giving contaminated water, and, noting the petitioner admitted signing bills even though money had been withdrawn (so he could not deny an attempt to withdraw money for repairs), held the allegations required proper enquiry and declined to interfere with the seizing order at this stage. The petition was disposed of with directions to respondent no.2 to complete the formal enquiry expeditiously and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within one month of presentation of a certified copy of the order; the Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 35338 of 2025

¶3

Shiv Swaroop Pandey

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Alauddin
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sanjai Kumar Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2 dated 3.5.2025 seizing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mahulani, Block Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the allegation levelled against the petitioner for non-repair of the hand-pumps it was found that all the hand-pumps were working in order except two where the quality of water was not upto the mark. He has further contended that after close of the inquiry proceedings on some affidavits given by one Sri Kailash Nath Mishra it has been concluded that the work of repair has not been carried out by the petitioner but by some private persons. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations that the bills forwarded by the petitioner for payments are forged documents.

¶11

It is the argument of the petitioner that when the bills and vouchers are forwarded by the Junior Engineer on the basis of measurement book, the Gram Pradhan forwards them for payment, none of the bills are prepared by the Gram Pradhan. Moreover, no payment has been made in respect of

¶12

WRIC No. 35338 of 2025

¶13

¶14

the works which have been alleged in the show cause notice till date. Therefore, there is no question of embezzlement against the petitioner.

¶15

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the instructions, contends that the responsibility of the Gram Pradhan is to verify the work done before signing the bills for payment. He cannot evade his responsibility on the ground that the technical report of completion of work is prepared by Junior Engineer. He is only a forwarding authority. The order of the District Magistrate dated 3.5.2025 has been passed after recording prima facie satisfaction of administrative irregularities found in the working of petitioner. As such, no interference is required against the aforesaid order.

¶16

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

The enquiry report and the order of the respondent no.2 dated 3.5.2025 shows that six out of eight hand-pumps had not been repaired and they are still giving contaminated water. As the fact that petitioner admits signing of the bills, even though the money had been withdrawn, he cannot deny the fact that attempt had been made to withdraw the money for repair of hand-pumps. The aforesaid allegations require a proper enquiry. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate dated 3.5.2025, at this stage.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.2 to make all efforts to get the formal enquiry completed, expeditiously, and pass a reasoned and speaking order pursuant to it, in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

¶20

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶21

December 16, 2025

¶22

Anil

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Swaroop Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Swaroop Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Kaali Aajivika Self Health Group vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vijay Kant vs State of U.P. and Another

Aravindra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manav Samaj Sewa Sansthan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghav Sharan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Arti Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others