S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the petitioner-respondent.
(2.) THE learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has also been heard on advance notice. The facts, in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this special appeal directed against an interlocutory order, lie in a narrow compass. The District Magistrate, purporting to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in him as envisaged under the provisions contained in U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Pradhanon, Up-Pradhanon Aur Sadasyon Ka Hataya Jana) Niyamawali, 1997, initiated proceedings against the Pradhan-the contesting respondent. Vide the order dated 21.6.2003, he called for an inquiry report from the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies in respect of the various misconducts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-respondent-Pradhan. On receiving the inquiry report, the District Magistrate issued a notice to the Pradhan-the contesting respondent, which was replied by her on 13.6.2003 by showing cause.
(3.) THE District Magistrate exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under the first proviso to Section 95 (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, being prima facie satisfied that the respondent-Pradhan had committed financial and other irregularities; vide his order dated 19.6.2003, issued a restraint order prohibiting the respondent-Pradhan from exercising any financial or administrative power and discharging any duties in connection therewith. Under the same order, the District Magistrate required the calling of a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for recommending the names for constituting a three members Committee as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act for discharging the duties exercising financial and administrative powers which could not be performed by the Pradhan in view of his ceasing to hold the office. It is not disputed that the three members committee indicated hereinabove has since been constituted. The learned single Judge vide the impugned order dated 4.7.2003, while granting time to learned standing counsel to file a counter-affidavit within one month and the caveator-respondent to file a counter-affidavit within the same period, granted two weeks' time thereafter to the petitioner to file rejoinder-affidavit. The writ petition was directed to be listed for admission thereafter. During the interregnum, the operation of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate dated 19.6.2003, was directed to remain stayed till further orders.;