M.Katju - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 26.7.1996 and 27.7.1996 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the petition). The petitioners were Gram Pradhans elected In 1990. By the impugned order dated 26.7.1996 of the District Magistrate, Dehradun addressed to all the Block Development Officers, it was directed that the records of the Gram Panchayats including those in the post office and in the Co-operative Banks should be seized forthwith and no amount should be withdrawn from the Bank. THIS order was passed by the District Magistrate in pursuance of the Government Order dated 25.7.1996. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 27.7.1996, the Block Development Officer, Raipur, Dehradun seized all the records of the Pradhans of Gram Panchayats and passed an order that no amount should be withdrawn from the accounts in the Bank.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no fresh election has taken place subsequent to the election of 1990 and hence the impugned order could not be passed and the petitioners have a right to continue till fresh election. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision under which the impugned order can be passed. In my opinion, the term of the petitioners has expired and, therefore, there is no question of any provision under which the impugned order could be passed. Since the term of the petitioners has expired, they have no right to continue at all. This very question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 433 (MB) of 1996, Din Dayal Singh Bhullar v. State of U. P. and others and Writ Petition No. 436 (MB) of 1996, Pushkar Singh Bisht v. State of U. P. and others decided on 5.4.1996 by the Lucknow Bench of this Court. It was held in that decision that in view of the provisions of Articles 243E and 243N of the Constitution, the Panchayats can continue only for five years but no longer. The Court further observed in that case that the State Government and the District Magistrates of the hill region can make proper alternative arrangements during the interim period till the next election is completed. Unfortunately, a large number of petitions were filed in this Court by Gram Pradhans of hill region and interim orders were obtained concealing the fact that similar petitions have already been disposed of by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 5.4.1986. In all these petitions, interim orders were obtained in July, August and September 1996 though the matter of similar nature had already been decided on 5.4.1996 by the Division Bench. In my opinion, the petitioners in all these cases have committed a fraud on this Court by obtaining interim orders concealing the fact that the matters of similar nature has already been decided by this Court.
(3.) THUS, this petition and all other similar petitions (whether they are listed today before me or not) which have been filed in this Court are dismissed forthwith. The District Magistrate can make interim arrangements regarding the office of the Gram Pradhan and regarding the Gram Panchayat until the fresh elections are completed in the hill region.;