Disposed¶16

Tufail Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026WRIC/39733/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jurisdiction of Lokayukta, U.P. over Gram Pradhan/Village Pradhan; U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1975 (Sections 2 and 7 cited); U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; three-member committee constituted by Commissioner, Basti Region; complaint by respondent no.4; petitioner Tufail Ahmad, ex-Pradhan who demitted office in 2020; writ disposed of with direction limiting enquiry to public servants. Bench: Arun Kumar, J. Decided February 26, 2026. WRIT - C No. 39733 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 that the three-member committee constituted by his order dated 17.9.2025 shall make enquiries only against public servants and not against the petitioner, who is an Ex-Pradhan and has already demitted office in 2020. ¶16

Tufail Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lokayukta, U.P. had jurisdiction to direct an inquiry against the petitioner, a Village/Gram Pradhan whose term had expired, under the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1975. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

It is an admitted position that the Lokayukta cannot direct any enquiry against the conduct of a Gram Pradhan.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The Commissioner has no authority under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with the Rules framed thereunder to constitute a committee for holding enquiry against a Gram Pradhan.

¶15

Key takeaways

The orders of respondent nos.2 and 3 dated 4.9.2025 and 17.9.2025 are not adverse to the petitioner.ratio¶15
The three-member committee constituted by the Commissioner's order dated 17.9.2025 shall make enquiries only against public servants and not against the petitioner, an Ex-Pradhan who demitted office in 2020.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Tufail Ahmad, an ex-Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Nagapar Telpurwa, District Siddharth Nagar, challenging (i) the order dated 4.9.2025 of the Lokayukta, U.P. directing constitution of a three-member committee and (ii) the order dated 17.9.2025 of the Commissioner, Basti Region constituting it, following a complaint by respondent no.4. Recording it as an admitted position that the Lokayukta cannot direct any enquiry against the conduct of a Gram Pradhan, and that the Commissioner has no authority under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with the Rules framed thereunder to constitute a committee for holding enquiry against a Gram Pradhan, the Court held the impugned orders were not adverse to the petitioner. The petition was disposed of with a direction that the committee enquire only against public servants and not against the petitioner, an Ex-Pradhan who had already demitted office in 2020.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 39733 of 2025

¶3

Tufail Ahmad

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Manish Tiwari, Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Manas Bhargava

¶6

Court No. - 36

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

The writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.9.2025 passed by respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. and the order dated 17.9.2025 passed by Commissioner, Basti Region, Basti, the respondent no.3.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Nagapar Telpurwa, Block Khunijav, District Siddharth Nagar. On a complaint made by respondent no.4, an inquiry was held against the petitioner, in which, nothing has been found against the petitioner and the authorities are again proceeding to get an inquiry conducted by filing complaint before Lokayukta, U.P., Lucknow. On the application moved by respondent no.4, again an order dated 4.9.2025, was passed by respondent no.2 Lokayukta, U.P., in which, a direction has been given to the respondent no.3 to constitute Three Member Committee to enquire into the matter and take action against the Pradhan, who is the petitioner, and others. He further submits that the term of petitioner as Pradhan has already expired and the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to pass any direction in this regard to the Commissioner of the Division, regarding any illegality done by ex-pradhan. In support of his contention, he placed reliance of Section 7 of the Lokayukta and UpLokayukta Act, 1975, which defines the public servant, in which, the title

¶11

WRIC No. 39733 of 2025

¶12

¶13

of Pradhan is missing. Therefore, the order impugned passed by respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. directing for inquiry is bad and the same may be set aside.

¶14

Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Standing Counsel, emphasizing upon paragraph nos.10 to 12 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent no.2, which is taken on record, submit that though the complaint was filed by respondent no.4 before Lokayukta, Administration, U.P. against two persons including the Pradhan but as per Section 2 of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukata & UpLokayuktas Act, 1975, Gram Pradhan does not come under the above mentioned category, hence, is not under the jurisdiction of Lokayukta Act, as such, no inquiry whatsoever is being conducted by the administration against the petitioner. They further submit that there is nothing on record to show that officers are conducting any inquiry against the petitioner as the inquiry is only against public servants, as required under law, therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

In view of the submission made by the counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that Lokayukt cannot direct any enquiry against the conduct of a Gram Pradhan. The Commissioner has no authority under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, read with the Rules framed thereunder to constitute a committee for holding enquiry against a Gram Pradhan. Therefore, the orders of the respondent nos.2 and 3, dated 4.9.2025 and 17.9.2025, are not adverse to the petitioner.

¶16

In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 that the three member committee constituted by his order dated 17.9.2025, shall make enquiries only against public servant and not against the petitioner, who is an ExPradhan, and has already demitted office in 2020.

¶17

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶18

February 26, 2026

¶19

Anil

¶20

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

Tufail Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tufail Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Vinit Kumar Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Santosh Pandey vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Ram Milan vs the State of U.P. and 10 Other

Smt. Anitma vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Kailash vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Salp Nath and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and 8 Others