Allowed

Khajan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC1 Aug 2013WPMS/1680/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing orders dated 01.07.2013 and 20.07.2013 in the removal enquiry proceedings under U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1997, granting liberty to respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 01.07.2013 and 20.07.2013 were quashed. Liberty granted to respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Khajan Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

WPMS No.1680 of 2013 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

¶2

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia and Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, provides that any person making a complaint against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, may send his complaint to the State Government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. This Rule further provides that every complaint referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant’s own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of facts relating to the accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to the accusation.

¶5

By referring the above-mentioned Rule, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case in hand, the complaint was not made to the State Government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government i.e. the District Magistrate, but the same was addressed to the Minister of Village Development, Panchayat Raj, Minor

¶6

Irrigation and Food & Civil Supply, Uttarakhand.

¶7

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondents submitted that from the perusal of impugned order and the record filed with the writ petition, it is clear that the complaint was not made to the State Government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government i.e. the District Magistrate. It is also evident that the committee, as prescribed under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, has not been constituted. He fairly submitted that the writ petition may be allowed and the orders dated 01.07.2013 and 20.07.2013 may be set aside, but liberty may be given to the respondents to proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶8

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 01.07.2013 and 20.07.2013 are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed, afresh, in accordance with law.

¶9

No order as to costs.

¶10

Arpan

Khajan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khajan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Guddi Devi Vs Union Of India and Others

Devashish Biswas Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Rajendra Vs Union Of India and Others

Madan Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Sri Bhupinder Kumar Vs State and Another

Rti Club Dehradun Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another