Sateesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, Advocate assisted by Shri Utkarsh Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing all the respondents.

¶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 09.02.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Garhi Jindaur, Development Block- Malihabad, District Lucknow under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

¶11

The order refers to the proviso appended to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act which provides that till outcome of the final inquiry, powers of the Village Pradhan are to be exercised by a Committee consisting of three members of Village Panchayat appointed by the State Government but no such Committee has been formed by the impugned order. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer,

¶12

WRIC No. 1824 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

Lucknow whereby he has directed the Assistant Development Officer Panchayat to elect a suitable member of Village Panchayat for exercising the powers of Village Pradhan.

¶15

Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was given a show cause notice and he had submitted a detailed reply to the same raising the pleas in defense of the allegations levelled against him but his explanation has not been taken into consideration in the impugned order. Further, the impugned order seizes the financial and administrative powers as Village Pradhan on the basis of a preliminary inquiry report and no final inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner.

¶16

On the same day i.e. on 09.02.2026, the District Magistrate, Lucknow has passed another order appointing the Deputy Commissioner, Labour Employment, Lucknow and Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Lucknow to conduct the final inquiry in the matter and submit a report within a period of 30 days. The period of 30 days has expired today but the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry has not yet been commenced.

¶17

Although the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition, he could not dispute that the petitioner's explanation has not been taken into consideration in the impugned order and that no final inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner.

¶18

On 22.02.2026, the name of a single member of Village Panchayat has been recommended for performing the duty of a Pradhan.

¶19

Appointment of a single member to perform the duties of Pradhan is not permitted as proviso appended to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides for constitution of a three member Committee to perform the duties of Pradhan in case the financial and administrative powers are seized under the aforesaid provision.

¶20

WRIC No. 1824 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that seizure of financial and administrative powers of the petitioner without taking into consideration his explanation as well as appointment of a single member to perform the duties of Pradhan during seizure of petitioner's powers are unsustainable in law.

¶23

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Garhi Jindaur, Development Block- Malihabad, District Lucknow and all consequential orders are hereby quashed . The District Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner.

¶24

March 9, 2026 -Amit K-

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

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

Sateesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sateesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj Sectt. Lko. 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

Similar cases

Mohammad Waseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Shoib vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Bhagelu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Waseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another