Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.) IN an all too frequent rivalry between an Up -Pradhan and Pradhan, which this case is about, the Pradhan, Ved Ram, respondent No. 3, who had been suspended, apparently, has been reinstated on an order, dated 6 April, 1994, passed by the Pargana Adhikari, Allahabad (Annexure - 7 to the Petition). This action of reinstating the Pradhan inks the Up -Pradhan, who happens to be the petitioner, Shripal. The thrust of the argument is that with the powers of the State Government to look into the matter as had been delegated to a certain authority, having been rescinded by a notification dated 13 December, 1993, on the Commissioner dismissing the revision of the suspended Pradhan, there was no occasion for the Additional Secretary to the State of U.P. to interfere in the matter so as to render a state of affairs to occasion reinstatement of the Pradhan.
(2.) IT takes two to play the same game in a matter of village politics. The court is not reflecting on any aspect of the controversy on merits; whether the complaints made by the Up -Pradhan (the petitioner) were right or were unfounded. But, the fact of the matter is that on 13 March, 1994, the petitioner, as an Up -Pradhan, also did not spare an opportunity to complain to the Minister. This aspect has been mentioned in paragraph 17 of the writ petition.
(3.) IN these circumstances, if the petitioner has already complained to a Minister in the State Government, he should not over rule a counter force at the behest of the Pradhan who also must have been lobbying around to counteract whatever the petitioner had intended.;