R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who is Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha, was suspended by order dated 19-8-1993 by the Prescribed Authority under Section 95 (1) (gg) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending proceedings under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act against him. Against this order the petitioner held a revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and in the revision he also moved an application for interim relief. The application for interim relief was rejected by the Commissioner by order dated 7-9-1993. Petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 37737 of 1993 before this Court for the following reliefs : "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7 9-1993 by which respondent|No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner for staying the operation of order dated 19-8-1993 ; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus staying the operation of order dated 19-8-1993 passed by Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Chail, Allahabad in case No. 1/44 of 1992, during the pendency of revision Lalji v. State of U P. and others, filed on 30-8-1993 before respondent No. 2 ; (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. And (iv) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." By the above writ petition, petitioner prayed for quashing of the order dated 7-9-1993, passed by the Commissioner, rejecting his stay application for staying the operation of the order of suspension dated 19-8-1993, passed by the Prescribed Authority. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 14-9-1993, which is reproduced herein below with the direction to the Commissioner to decide the revision of the petitioner within the specified time. "Petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 7-9-1993 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad in revision proceedings. The Commissioner has rejected the stay application and has fixed an early date for hearing of the case The impugned order is interlocutory in nature and does not call for any interference by this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commissioner, Allahabad is directed to decide the Revision filed by the petitioner within two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon him. With the aforesaid directions the petition is finally disposed of.
(2.) Instead of getting his revision decided by the Commissioner, petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of the case pending before the Prescribed Authority as well as the order dated 21-4-1993, alleged to have been passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Along with the writ petition, petitioner has also moved on application for interim relief praying for stay of the operation of the order of suspension dated 19-8-1993, passed by the Prescribed Authority Prayers made in the present writ petition are reproduced below: "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21st of April, 1993 passed by the Respondent No 1 (contained in Annexure-II to the writ petition) and to quash entire proceedings of case No. 1/44 of 1993, Ranjit Singh v. Lalji of the Court of Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Chail, Allahabad, Respondent No. 2. (ii) to issue any other writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper. (iii) to award the costs of this petition to the petitioner." In this writ petition this Court granted the interim order staying the operation of the order of suspension dated 19-8-1993, which is reproduced below: "Standing Counsel is granted three weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Petitioner is directed to serve respondent No. 3 by registered notice and take steps within four days. List on 5-11-1993. Meanwhile the operation of the order dated 19-8-1992 shall remain stayed but it will be open to the District Magistrate, Allahabad to get the complaints made against the petitioner enquired by the S.D O./A.S D.O., Handia and thereafter appropriate action in accordance with law can be taken against the petitioner "
(3.) Respondent No. 3 has filed counter-affidavit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel.;