P. P. Gupta, J. - (1.) MOHD. Yunus, respondent no. 4, was elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Mauja Mewa Nawada, Pargana Shivhara, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor. In the same election, the petitioner, Suresh Singh, was elected as Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. MOHD. Yunus was suspended under Section 95 (1) (gg) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by respondent no. 2, by his order dated 15-5-1V90. As a stopgap arrangement, the petitioner, being Up- Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, was given the charge of office of the Pradhan, which he was holding till date. Respondent no. 4 abused his position as Pradhan and he was found guilty of various irregularities. The petitioner, in his capacity as Up-Pradhan, and other members of the Gaon Sabha made several complaints against the pradhan before respondent no. 2. A show-cause notice was given to respondent no. 4. who was also suspended by an order dated 15-5-1990 passed by respondent no, 2. By the same order the Tahsildar, Dbampur was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. A charge-sheet was submitted against respondent no. 4 An enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, Dhampur, who submitted his report on 23-1-1991 to respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2, after considering the report of the Tahsildar, recalled the order dated 15-5-1990 and reinstated respondent do. 4 on the post of pradhan. A copy of the order dated 25-7- 1991 is Annexure III to the writ petition The contention of the petitioner is that although he made complaints against respondent no. 4 he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings against the Pradhan. It was contended than the order dated 25-7-1991, passed by respondent no. 2, is wholly illegal. arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order he also filed a revision before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, respondent no 1, which was dismissed on 22-3-1991. Feeling aggrieved from the said order of the Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25-7-1991, passed by respondent no 2, and 22-8-1991, passed by respondent no. 1.
(2.) WITH the consent of the; parties, the petition was heard finally at the stage of admission and is being disposed of accordingly. The facts mentioned above and in the writ petition are not in dispute. Respondent no. 4 and the petitioner were elected Pradhan and Up-Pradhan respectively of the Gaon Sabha Maija Mewa Nawada, Pargana Shivhara. Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnnor. On account of some irregularities, respondent no. 4 was suspended by an order dated 15-5-1990, passed by respondent no. 2. The Tahsildar, Dhampur, under orders of respondent no. 2. conducted an enquiry against respondent no 4 and submitted his report. After considering the enquiry report of the Tahsildar, respondent no. 2 recalled the suspension order dated 15-5-1990 and reinstated the respondent no. 4 to the post of Pradhan. During his suspension period, the petitioner was given charge of the post off Pradhan, which he claims he had been holding till date. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was one of the complainants against respondent no. 4, he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry against respondent no. 4. He preferred a revision before respondent no. 1 against the order dated 25-7-91 passed by respondent no- 2 by which the suspension order passed against respondent no. 4 was recalled and he was reinstated at the post of Pradhan. The revision was dismissed by respondent no. 1 on 22-8-1991. The question, in these circumstances, is whether the petitioner, who is Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and was to hold charge temporarily during the suspension period of Pradhan, has a right to challenge the orders dated 25-7-91, passed by respondent no. 2, and 22-8-1991, passed by respondent no 1. The Act has conferred on the State Government powers of control and supervision over the Gaon Sabha and its office bearers and the same are contained in Section 95 of the Act. Section 95 falls under Chapter VII of the Act which bears the heading "External Control". Section 95 itself has the marginal heading "Inspection". What the State Government may do under sub-section (1) of Section 95 is enumerated in clauses (a) to (h). The power conferred under clauses fa) to (c) and (e) is a purely administrative power by the exercise of which the State 'Government monitors the functioning of the Gaon Sabha and its executive bodies, the Gaon Panchayat and the committees Under clause (d), the State Government may record in writing for the consideration of a Gaon Panchayat or joint Committee any observation which it thinks proper in regard to the proceedings or duties of such Gaon Panchayat or Joint Committee Under clauses (g), (gg) and (h), the State Government is competent to take action against individuals. Under clause (g) a Pradhan can be removed, while under clause (gg) he can be suspended pending enquiry. These powers area dministrative in nature. In such exercise of administrative powers, the Up-Pradhan or any member of the Gaon Sabha or for that matter even the voters, at the election of Pradhan. cannot have any say. It Is a matter between the State Government and the Pradhan. The petitioner, who is Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and who claims to have made complaints and on the basis whereof an enquiry was conducted against respondent no. 4, cannot be said to be a necessary party. He has no locus standi in such a case. He can at the best be a witness in the said enquiry. None of his personal or statutory rights are affected. He has no independent power under the Act except that he exercises the powers of Pradhan temporarily in his absence or in the event of his suspension or removal. It, therefore, follows that if the suspension or removal order is revoked and the Pradhan is reinstated, he has no right to continue in the office of Pradhan thereafter. The petitioner has, therefore, no right either to file a revision against the order passed by respondent no. 2, by which the suspension of respondent no. 4 was recalled and he was reinstated to the post of Pradhan. or to file the present writ petition, as no such right to challenge the impugned order can be said to have been conferred on any person other than the person concerned, such as who has keen suspended or removed. So far as the right of Up-Pradhan or for that matter of any other member of the Gaon Sabha or voter at the election is concerned, there are other provisions in the Act. Under Section 14, a Pradhan can be removed by adoption of a motion of no confidence in the prescribed manner.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings against respondent no. 4 is also not supported by any material on record. THEre is nothing to show that he moved an application before the Tahsildar, who was conducting an enquiry or before respondent no. 2 for examining him as a witness against respondent no. 4. THErefore, his bare allegation, without any supporting material, that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings against respondent no. 4 cannot be accepted. In view of the above, it is held that the present petition filed by the petitioner, who is Up-Pradhan and who was to hold charge of the post of Pradhan only during the suspension period of respondent no. 4, is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;