MALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is only a complainant. I do not find any good reason to implead him as party. The same is accordingly rejected. Re: Writ Petition Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-respondents and perused the record.

(2.) Present petition has been filed with the following prayers: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) in respect of petitioner only mentioned in the last paragraph of the order. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner to recover the amount of Rs. 2,32,121/- in pursuant to the order dated 05.04.2016."

(3.) While entertaining the present petition order dated 15.03.2016 was passed, which is quoted as under: "Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Akhilesh Dwivedi holding brief of Sri T.M.Khan, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha. While assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that initially notice dated 10.8.2015 was issued against the petitioner, who happens to be ex-pradhan, under Sec. 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act readwith U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The term of Pradhan has expired in Oct., 2015, new Panchayat has been constituted and proceeding under Sec. 95(1)(g) can only be initiated and concluded against sitting Pradhan. In view of the fact that the petitioner is no sitting Pradhan therefore the order impugned dated 5.2.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur is without jurisdiction. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State could not dispute the fact from perusal of record that the notice dated 10.8.2015 was not issued to the petitioner under Sec. 95(1)(g) and the order impugned has not been passed taking shelter of that. Matter requires scrutiny. Issue notice. Notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Sri T.M. Khan has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3, therefore notice need not be served again to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, operation of the impugned order dated 5.2.2016 passed by District Magistrate, Gorakhpur shall remain stayed. However this order will not preclude the State respondent to proceed in accordance with law for realising the loss if any to the Gaon Sabha under the relevant provisions contained in U.P. Panchayat Raj Act or other relevant statute. "