RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Y.K. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 & 7.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.03.2013 whereby the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act') has ceased the financial and administrative powers of petitioner being Pradhan and has constituted a three member committee to exercise the said powers. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that under the Act it is only the State Government which is empowered to pass the order in exercise of powers under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act whereas the order impugned has been passed by the District Magistrate. It is also submitted that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted prior to passing of the impugned order and no enquiry is pending or contemplated with regard to the allegations on which the order impugned has been passed.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submitted that vide notification dated 30.4.1997 the State Government has delegated its power under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act to the District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction, as such, for all practical purposes the opposite party no. 2 was fully empowered to pass the impugned order.;