Rizwana Begam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 9 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1538 of 2026

Rizwana Begam

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

¶10

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the District Programme Coordinator/District Magistrate, Sultanpur ordering recovery to be made from the petitioner for alleged irregularities committed in carrying out certain works in Gaon Sabha. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an Appeal No.69 of 2024 under Section 27(3) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and validity of the appellate order has also been challenged by the petitioner.

¶11

The limited submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order makes a mention of an explanation submitted by the petitioner and it discards the same in one line by merely stating that the explanation was examined and was not found to be admissible. The order does not make any mention of the points raised by the petitioner in her explanation and it does not deal with the same.

¶12

Although the learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the writ petition and they have submitted that during inquiry, the petitioner has been found guilty of committing irregularities and, therefore, recovery has rightly been ordered against her but they could not dispute the aforesaid

¶13

WRIC No. 1538 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

aspects of the matter that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner.

¶16

The requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing is not fulfilled by merely giving an opportunity to submit an explanation and it requires that the explanation tendered must be taken into consideration and must be dealt with by assigning appropriate reasons. As the impugned order fails to satisfy this requirement, it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice which vitiates the order.

¶17

According, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 01.06.2021 and 26.11.2025 passed by the District Programme Coordinator/District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya respectively are hereby quashed .

¶18

The matter is remanded to the District Programme Coordinator/District Magistrate, Sultanpur for being decided afresh after taking into consideration the points raised by the petitioner in her explanation and dealing with the same by assigning reasons in his order. A fresh order, after reconsideration of the petitioner's explanation, shall be passed expeditiously, say within a period of three months from today.

¶19

February 20, 2026 -Amit K-

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

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

Rizwana Begam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwana Begam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prahlad vs Govt. India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication New Delhi and 5 Others

Laden @ Mohd. Ali Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Anthony vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Sushma Devi vs Umashankar and 3 Others

Binesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority Thru.Chief Executive Officer Lucknow vs the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Resettlement Authority Lko. and 5 Others