B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Mata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned standing counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4.
(2.) Respondent no.5 is stated to be a complainant at whose behest proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, complainant is not required to be heard as his role ends once the complaint has been brought to the notice of the authority.
(3.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 17.6.2017 whereby the District Magistrate has constituted a three member Committee for holding an enquiry into the allegations of financial irregularities against the petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) (iii) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and in the meantime has seized the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan.;