- (1.) Case has been taken-up in the revised list. None is present for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is present. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, making the following prayers: I. issue a writ, order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to hold proper enquiry against the respondent No. 6 in pursuance of application dated 25.3.2010 made by the petitioner. II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the application dated 25.3.2010 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. III. to issue any other writ, direction or order and grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. to order for cost.
(2.) It is, inter alia, averred that the respondent No. 6, elected Pradhan of Village Malsil, Block Mariyahu, District Jaunpur, committed irregularities in respect of several schemes and also committed misappropriation of Gram Sabha Fund; and that despite several applications having been submitted including the application dated 25.3.2010 by the petitioner, nothing has been done in the matter.
(3.) On 13.1.2011, this Court passed the following order: Issue notice pending admission. Notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel. Notice on behalf of the respondent No. 6 has been accepted by Sri M.N. Singh. Therefore, no notice need be sent to the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel states that he has received instructions in the matter. As per the instructions received, learned Standing Counsel states that preliminary enquiry in the matter was directed by the District Magistrate by the order dated 23.2.2002 and that the preliminary enquiry is still going on, and the date fixed in the preliminary enquiry was 11.1.2011. Rule 4 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 deals with the preliminary enquiry. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that the Enquiry Officer shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within thirty days of his having been so ordered. In the present case, as per the instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel, the preliminary enquiry is still going on even though, almost two years have elapsed since the passing of the order by the District Magistrate on 23.2.2009. The Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 5) as well as the District Magistrate, Jaunpur (respondent No. 2) are directed to file their respective personal affidavits explaining as to under what circumstances, the preliminary enquiry has been continuing for about two years despite provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules for completion of such enquiry and submission of Report within thirty days of such enquiry being ordered. Such Affidavits will be filed by the next date fixed in the matter. List this case on 24.1.2011. Certified copy of this order will be supplied to Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel without payment of charges today.;