VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dinesh Rahi, learned holding brief of Sri Virendra Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 4 and have perused the record.
(2.) THE respondent No. 4 Smt. Ram Kali is in an elected Gram Pradhan of the village in question. On a complaint filed by the petitioner, the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan (respondent No. 4) had been ceased by the District Magistrate on 4.4.2008. The said order dated 4.4.2008 has not been filed alongwith this writ petition. However, after enquiry the District Magistrate has restored back the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan (respondent No. 4). The petitioner has also not filed said order of the District Magistrate restoring the powers of the Pradhan. All that the petitioner has filed is a communication dated 8.6.2009 of the Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari wherein it is stated that after the enquiry was completed, the District Magistrate has given his approval for withdrawing the earlier order whereby the certain restrictions have been imposed on the operation of the accounts of the Gram Pradhan by the earlier order. The two main orders, that is orders dated 4.4.2008 and 8.6.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, have not been filed along with this writ petition. In the absence of the said orders, no decision can be taken as to whether the order of withdrawal was proper or not. With regard to non-filing of the said orders, all that the petitioner has stated (in paragraph 11 of the writ petition) is that, the petitioner approached the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not get the said orders. The said explanation is absolutely vague.
(3.) ON the one hand, Sri M.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 4.4.2008 was not passed under Section 9(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act but in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it has been stated that it was obligatory upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to constitute a three member Enquiry Committee as required under the proviso of Section 9(1)(g) of the Act. It is thus not understood as to what is the stand of the petitioner, that is, under which provision the order dated 4.4.2008 (which has not even been filed) had been passed. As such, in these circumstances, no interference is called for in this writ petition.;