Surendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026WPIL/122/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Pradhan enquiry; financial irregularities; misuse of power; Gaon Sabha Ralbhari; Tehsil Fatehpur; Barabanki; Section 95(1)(g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947; Rule 3; District Magistrate; prescribed proforma; PIL disposed; personal interest of petitioners; encroachment Gata no.215 Purani Parti; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioners or any other person may approach the District Magistrate under Section 95(1)(g) read with Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the prescribed proforma and as per Rules, if permissible in law and on a bonafide cause; no enquiry was directed by the Court. ¶¶14

Surendra Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 122 of 2026

¶3

Surendra Kumar And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohan Singh

¶8

Court No. - 1

¶9

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶10

1. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel for State respondents and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.

¶11

2. Petitioner seeks an enquiry against the Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Ralbhari, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. He alleges financial irregularities and misuse of power by the Gram Pradhan.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for Gaon Sabha states that the petitioners have a personal interest in the matter as they themselves are the encroacher of part of land being Gata no.215, which is recorded as Purani Parti and when the encroachment was sought to be removed they have filed this Public Interest Litigation.

¶13

4. Be that as it may, if it is otherwise permissible in law and there is a bonafide cause, the petitioners or anybody else can approach the District Magistrate concerned under Section 95(1)(g) read with Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the prescribed proforma and as per Rules.

¶14

5. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶16

February 12, 2026 Arnima

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 9 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ketki Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Lko and 4 Others

Anushri Trivedi vs U.O.I. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Financial Services, New Delhi and 4 Ors.

Romila Verma vs U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Rajya Niyojan Santhan Thru. Its Chairman and Another

Atal Bihari Vajpayee Medical University Thru. Registrar vs Baba Edu. Society Lko Thru. Secy. Rajesh Kumar Vajpayee and Another

M/S Clayson Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Manish Singh vs Secy. Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Ministry of Cooperation, and 4 Others

M/S Vivek Construction and Suppliers Thru. Proprietor Shri Vivek Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others