Dhruv Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dhruv Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with the observation that the proceeding under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 be finalized in accordance with law and the respondent Authority left open to proceed in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue to the respondent Authority to comply with the order dated 19.09.2025 of the District Magistrate, Jalaun, take action against the sitting Pradhan and prevent misuse of public funds. +1 more

Court's answer

As regards the enquiry report, the grievance of the petitioner is already redressed, and it is left open to the respondent Authority to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter relates to a financial matter and the quantified amount has already been deposited in response to the enquiry report, the proceeding under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must be finalized in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest litigation under Article 226 jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to the respondent Authority to comply with the order dated 19.09.2025 of the District Magistrate, Jalaun, take action against the sitting Gram Pradhan and prevent misuse of public funds. An earlier Division Bench order dated 04.02.2026 had noted that, despite notice under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to the Gram Pradhan and receipt of response on 17.11.2025, no action appeared to have been taken under the Act. On 19.03.2026, the State filed instructions of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jalaun dated 17.03.2026 stating that a report was submitted on 12.02.2026 and the quantified amount had been deposited by the Pradhan and Secretary. Holding the petitioner's grievance redressed, the Court disposed of the writ petition observing that the proceeding under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must be finalized in accordance with law, leaving it open to the respondent Authority to proceed accordingly.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3883 of 2025

Dhruv Pratap Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Bhaiya Lal Yadav, Raj Bihari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Deepak Gaur

Court No. - 21

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

The instant public interest litigation is preferred for a direction to the respondent Authority to comply the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun and take action against the sitting Pradhan and to prevent the misuse of public funds.

The Division Bench while entertaining the instant writ petition on 04.02.2026 has proceeded to observe :

"1. A perusal of the instructions produced only indicates that some action has been initiated against the officers, however, despite notice issued under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to the Gram Pradhan and its response having been received on 17.11.2025, no action appears to have been taken under the provisions of the Act, so far.

2. Learned Standing Counsel prays for time to obtain instructions in this regard.

3. Needful may be done before the next date.

4. List on 19.03.2026, as fresh. "

In response to the aforesaid direction, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has placed the detailed instructions sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jalaun dated 17.03.2026, which is taken on record. He submits that in the instant

WPIL No. 3883 of 2025

2

proceeding, initially, the report has been submitted on 12.02.2026 and consequently, the amount which had been quantified has already been deposited by the Pradhan and Secretary. He submits that the proceedings are all in accordance with law.

Considering the facts and circumstances, we are prima facie of the opinion as the matter relates to the financial matter and consequently, in response to the enquiry report, the amount has already been deposited, we observe that the proceeding under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must be finalized in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

So far as the enquiry report is concerned, we find that the grievance of the petitioner is already redressed, we leave it open to the respondent Authority to proceed in accordance with law.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

March 19, 2026 Priya

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad