# Ram Yagya (Village Pradhan) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 747
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 8140 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-yagya-village-pradhan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54687
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947Section
95(1)(g)-The
petitioner
challenged the District Magistrate order
directing a preliminary inquiry under
section
95(1)(g)
of
the
Act,1947,
concerning
allegations
of
fraud
and
misappropriation of funds related to a
village pond-the petitioner argued that
the District Magistrate order is arbitrary
since two earlier inquiries found the
complaints baseless-Held, The court ruled
that the District Magistrate's order for a
preliminary inquiry is within legal bounds
and does not affect the petitioner's rights
at
this
stage-allegations
involving
defalcation or misappropriation of state
funds warrant investigation-Prior inquiries
by other authorities do not preclude the
District Magistrate from ordering a fresh
inquiry under section 95(1)(g) of the
Act,1947-If the inquiry finds substance in
the allegations, the petitioner will have
full opportunity to defend himself during
subsequent proceedings-Hence, the court
dismissed the petition, stating that no
interference requires.(Para 1 to 12)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

9 All. Ram Yagya (Village Pradhan) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
747
Officer of the LDA which the petitioner
had sought in his application.

10. Necessary orders be passed as are
required under Section 19, in view of the
observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court and by this Court, in the aforecited
judgments, and the matter be tried to be
disposed of within a period of six months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before the Respondent no.1.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 747
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 8140 of 2024

Ram Yagya (Village Pradhan)
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947Section
95(1)(g)-The
petitioner
challenged the District Magistrate order
directing a preliminary inquiry under
section
95(1)(g)
of
the
Act,1947,
concerning
allegations
of
fraud
and
misappropriation of funds related to a
village pond-the petitioner argued that
the District Magistrate order is arbitrary
since two earlier inquiries found the
complaints baseless-Held, The court ruled
that the District Magistrate's order for a
preliminary inquiry is within legal bounds
and does not affect the petitioner's rights
at
this
stage-allegations
involving
defalcation or misappropriation of state
funds warrant investigation-Prior inquiries
by other authorities do not preclude the
District Magistrate from ordering a fresh
inquiry under section 95(1)(g) of the
Act,1947-If the inquiry finds substance in
the allegations, the petitioner will have
full opportunity to defend himself during
subsequent proceedings-Hence, the court
dismissed the petition, stating that no
interference requires.(Para 1 to 12)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh
Bhadauriya,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and the Standing counsel.

2. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
is a duly elected Pradhan of Village Nidura,
Block Jaisinghpur,k District Sultanpur and
has been holding the office since 2021. The
grievance raised in the present writ petition
is with regard to repeated frivolous
complaints made against the petitioner by
one Kapil Muni. It has been submitted that
the first complaint was made against the
petitioner on 15.6.2024 which was made
on Sampurna Samadhan Divas. It is
stated that the said complaint was with
regard to a pond situated at gata
No.485/0.708 hectare which has been
made stating that the petitioner by
playing fraud has misappropriated the
fund and subsequently allegations have
been made for selling the same illegally.
Inquiry
was
conducted
by
Block
Development Officer on 31.7.2024 and
he held that he could not find any merit in
the allegations in the complaint which
could not, therefore, be verified.
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The second compliant was made on
24.6.2024 which was addressed to the
District Magistrate and it seems that the
said
letter
was
endorsed
to
Chief
Development Officer and in the second
complaint also inquiry was conducted by
Block Development Officer, who submitted
report on 25.6.2024 recording a finding that
the facts in the complaint could not be
verified. At this stage, it is pertinent to
mention that though the complaints made
on Sampurna Samadhan Divas was prior to
to the complaint made to the District
Magistrate who had directed inquiry be
conducted by Khand Vikas Adhikari who
submitted report prior to the inquiry
conducted by Gram Vikas Adhikari. It is
also been submitted that it is on the basis of
the aforesaid complaint that the District
Magistrate
has
proceeded
under
the
provisions of Section 95(1) (g) of U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and directed the
District Social Welfare Officer to conduct
inquiry into the complaint made by Kapil
Muni and accordingly in the present writ
petition has been filed in which prayer has
been made to quash the order of the District
Magistrate dated 26.7.2024 wherein he has
directed for conducting inquiry under
Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order is illegal and
arbitrary in as much as there is no material
on the basis of which the impugned order
has been passed considering the fact that
for the same allegations two inquires have
been previously conducted by Village
Development Officer as well as Block
Development Officer and in both the
inquiries the complaint was found to be
false and frivolous.

5. Learned Standing counsel, has
opposed the writ petition. He submits that
by means of the impugned order the
District Magistrate has only directed to
conduct inquiry into the allegations made
by the complainant, namely Kapil Muni.
He submits that it is only a fact finding
inquiry and the petitioner cannot be said to
be adversely affected by the said inquiry. In
case in the inquiry any matterial is found
linking to the petitioner to the irregularities
committed with regard to the said pond,
then appropriate charge sheet would be
issued to the petitioner then he will have
full opportunity to defend himself in the
said inquiry and all these grounds will be
available to him during the said inquiry and
accordingly, there is no ground for
interference in the impugned order as
prayed by the petitioner.

6. I have heard the rival contentions.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is
evident that the complainant has been
making complaints with regard to the pond
situated
at
Village-
Nidura,
Block
Jaisinghpur,
District
Sultanpur
before
various authorities firstly at the village
level and then at District Level. It seems
that at the village level report was filed on
31.7.2024 and at the block level the Block
Development
Officer
also
conducted
inquiry on 25.6.20224. It is noticed that
both the inquiries do not relate to the
proceedings under Section 95 (1) (g) of the
Act of 1947 and the District Magistrate on
going through the aforesaid complaints has
thought it proper to get the matter inquired
for which purposes by means of the order
dated 26.7.2024 he directed the matter to be
inquired by District Social Welfare Officer.
Considering the fact that the matter is only
at preliminary stage where the District
Magistrate has directed the inquiry to be
conducted under Section 95 (1) (g) and a
preliminary inquiry is sought to be
9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
749
conducted so as to ascertain the facts
alleged in the complaint, it cannot be said
that the petitioner is adversely affected at
this stage.

8. This Court is of the considered
opinion that whenever there are allegations
of defalcation or misappropriation of the
State fund, it is the bounden duty of the
authorities concerned to immediately look
into the complaint at the earliest to test the
veracity of the said complaint. At this
stage, no right of any individual is affected
and only limited inquiry is conducted to
verify the facts as mentioned in the
complaint. It is only when the allegations is
fount to be prima facie true then the
proceedings can be initiated for taking
action against the person responsible for
defalcation of fund or misappropriation of
State fund for which purposes due inquiry
is to be conducted and in the present case,
detailed procedure has also been prescribed
under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947

9. May be in case, two other inquiries
by two other authorities have independently
been conducted they would not have any
bearing in the present inquiry to be conducted
under Section 95 (1) (g) where District
Magistrate will have to consider the reports
as submitted by District Social Welfare
Officer and in case he finds that there is some
material fact he shall proceed further in the
matter and in case the allegations in the
complaint are not verified then he would be
at liberty to drop the proceedings. At this
preliminary stage, the Court cannot interfere
on the ground that preliminary inquiry is
sought to be conducted and previously also
other authorities have conducted two other
inquiries.

10. In any view of the matter District
Magistrate is bound by the statutory
provisions under Section 95 (1) (g) where
there is no prescription of taking into
account of the said inquiries submitted by
other authorizes.

11. In proceedings under the said
Sections the petitioner will have full
opportunity to defend himself and in case it
is found that there is prima facie substance
in the complaint made by the complainant
for which purposes the District Magistrate
will
be
bound
by
the
procedure
prescribed under the Act of 1947 and it is
only after giving opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner that he would proceed further
in the matter and when that stage is reached
the petitioner will have full opportunity to
defend himself and adduce all the material
available whit him before the authorities.

12. In light of the above, no
interference is called for by this Court. The
petition
being
devoid
of
merits
is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 749
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ - C No. 16616 of 2024

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raghuvansh Misra (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohd. Afzal, Rahul Agarwal