- (1.) HEARD Sri Sushil Kumar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) ACCORDING to the pleadings contained in writ petition No. 64500 of 2006 the petitioner filed complaint dated 9-10-2006 before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gunnaur (respondent No. 3) against Raghunath Singh (respondent No. 4) about non-distribution of kerosene oil in the month of September, 2006. Copy of the complaint is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is contended vide para 5 of the writ petition that the petition is being filed through Smt. Siya Pyari Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pusawali, Block Junawai. It is further pleaded (vide para 10 of the writ petition) that another complaint was made on 17-11-2006 and several other complaints were also made before the Senior Supply Inspector, Gunnaur (respondent No. 2) and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gunnaur. (Respondent No. 3 ). Copies of such complaints have been filed as Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to be issued directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gunnaur district Budaun to pass appropriate order on the complaint of the petitioner. From perusal of Memorandum of Writ Petition and the complaints referred to above, it is clear that Smt. Siya Pyari has filed this writ petition in her capacity as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pusawali.
(3.) THE Court raised preliminary objection regarding the writ petition being filed by a private Counsel and not through Standing Counsel as prescribed under law as there is no resolution of Gram Sabha for this purpose nor permission has been obtained from the Collector to engage private Counsel. Case was taken up on 29-11-2006 but was directed to be taken up on the next day as fresh in order to enable the learned Counsel for the parties to study the issue and address the Court regarding maintainability of the writ petition through 'private Counsel'.;