- (1.) Heard.
(2.) Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition at the behest of the petitioner-complainant, however, when he was confronted with the judgment of this Court dated 27.9.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6596(MS) of 2019 filed by his client i.e. the opposite party no.5 herself, wherein while quashing the order by which the powers of the opposite party no.5 had been seized by the District Magistrate this Court had directed the District Magistrate to appoint an inquiry officer in terms of Rule 2-C of the Rules 1997 within 10 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter proceedings shall be held afresh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 fairly submitted that in view of this judgment the order impugned which is dated 28.9.2019 cannot be sustained and is to be declared redundant, however, he says that this has occurred on account of the fact that copy of the order dated 27.9.2019 could be made available subsequent to 28.9.2019 and by the time it was served upon the District Magistrate the order impugned had already been passed.
(3.) A reference may be made to the observations/findings of this Court in the petition filed by the opposite party no.5 herself : "Now as far as the merits of the case are concerned the error in the impugned order is apparent to the extent that the Inquiry Committee constituted is not in terms of rule 2-C of the Rules, 1997. The error is fundamental as the entire exercise under Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is based on the preliminary inquiry report, which is to be followed by a final inquiry, if, occasion so arises in terms of rules 4,5 and 6 of the Rules, 1997. In view of the aforesaid, as the State has not been able to establish that Inquiry Committee was constituted in terms of rule 2-C of the Rules, 1997 the impugned order seizing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, the District Magistrate/Collector is directed to proceed afresh with the inquiry by constituting an Inquiry Committee or appoint an Inquiry Officer terms of rule 2-C of the Rules, 1997 within ten days on receipt of a certified copy of this order who shall thereafter conduct an enquiry in the matter with the assistance of other Revenue officers/authorities as the District Magistrate may provide and submit the inquiry report to the District Magistrate within a period of next six weeks. It is made clear that the other officers may assist the Inquiry Officer but shall not form part of the Inquiry Committee meaning thereby the assistance which is provided by them will be verified and scrutinized by the Inquiry Officer as to the facts and material collected. Based on such inquiry report a decision shall be taken by the District Magistrate under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947 read with the Rules, 1997 as to whether the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner are required to be seized or not? Consequences shall follow accordingly accordance with law. In the meantime, the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code against the petitioner's husband and other encroachers of the Gaon Sabha land, if any, shall be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law and final orders shall be passed at the earliest. Consequences in this regard shall also follow accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.";