# Shiv Devi v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49225 of 2005
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-devi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40777
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Punchayat Raj Act 1947 Section 95
(1)(g)-readwith-U.P.
Panchayat
Raj
(Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and
Members) Enquiry Rules 1997-Rule-8Financial and administrative power of
Pradhan-ceased
by
the
District
Magistrate-No enquiry as per provisions
of Rules conducted for long spell of time
of 3 years-held-the authorities failed to
act
in
conformity
with
Statutory
provision-operation of impugned Order
Quashed-as the Pradhan are elected by
democratic process interference must be
in
strict
conformity
with
statutory
provision.

Held: Para 5 and 8

The period may not mandatory but still
the authority's are required to act under
law
with
all
promptness
in
the
proceedings
initiated
against
the
Pradhan under Section 95 (1)(g) proviso
of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act without
any uncalled for delay. It is to be kept in
mind
that
the
Pradhans
of
Gram
Panchayat are elected by a democratic
process, interference in powers of the
elected representatives of the people by
the administrative authorities must be in
strict conformity with the statutory
provision.

In such circumstances, this Court is
prima facie of the opinion that the
respondent-authorities have failed to act
in
conformity
with
the
statutory
provisions, by not getting a final enquiry
conducted
against
the
Pradhan
(petitioner), by a nominated officer
within reasonable time. Therefore, they
not be permitted to continue with the
ceasation of financial and administrative
powers of the Pradhan.
Case law discussed:
1999 (2) UPLBEC-718

## Text

1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
examination before holding the interview
cannot be said to be arbitrary in any
manner. This Court is satisfied that the
procedure so adopted is fair and based on
different set of circumstances which come
into existence because of the large
number
of
applications
received
at
Allahabad. The decision taken by the
State respondents to hold a written
examination before holding interview for
the purposes of short-listing cannot be
said to be arbitrary and discriminatory in
any manner.

In view of the aforesaid, none of the
grounds raised on behalf of the petitioners
are tenable in the eyes of law. Writ
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49225 of 2005

Shiv Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Punchayat Raj Act 1947 Section 95
(1)(g)-readwith-U.P.
Panchayat
Raj
(Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and
Members) Enquiry Rules 1997-Rule-8Financial and administrative power of
Pradhan-ceased
by
the
District
Magistrate-No enquiry as per provisions
of Rules conducted for long spell of time
of 3 years-held-the authorities failed to
act
in
conformity
with
Statutory
provision-operation of impugned Order
Quashed-as the Pradhan are elected by
democratic process interference must be
in
strict
conformity
with
statutory
provision.

Held: Para 5 and 8

The period may not mandatory but still
the authority's are required to act under
law
with
all
promptness
in
the
proceedings
initiated
against
the
Pradhan under Section 95 (1)(g) proviso
of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act without
any uncalled for delay. It is to be kept in
mind
that
the
Pradhans
of
Gram
Panchayat are elected by a democratic
process, interference in powers of the
elected representatives of the people by
the administrative authorities must be in
strict conformity with the statutory
provision.

In such circumstances, this Court is
prima facie of the opinion that the
respondent-authorities have failed to act
in
conformity
with
the
statutory
provisions, by not getting a final enquiry
conducted
against
the
Pradhan
(petitioner), by a nominated officer
within reasonable time. Therefore, they
not be permitted to continue with the
ceasation of financial and administrative
powers of the Pradhan.
Case law discussed:
1999 (2) UPLBEC-718

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.P. Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3 and learned Standing
counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1
and 2.

Respondents are granted three weeks
time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder
4 All] Shiv Devi V. State of U.P. and others
1223
affidavit may be filed within a week
thereafter.

List on 31st August, 2005.

2. The financial and administrative
of the elected Pradhan, namely, Shiv Devi
(petitioner) were ceased under order of
the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra dated
20th November, 2002. Feeling aggrieved
by the aforesaid order of the District
Magistrate the petitioner filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.5444 of 2002. In the said
writ petition the Court did not grant any
interim order to the petitioner, the writ
petition is still pending. Subsequently the
District
Panchayat
Raj
Adhikari,
Sonbhadra passed orders dated 31st
March, 2003 and dated 5th April, 2003,
whereby the Pradhan as well as two other
persons namely, District Panchayat Raj
Adhikari and Secretary, were required to
deposit a sum of Rs.29708/- said to be
loss caused to the Gram Panchayat.
Thereafter the District Magistrate passed
an order dated 23rd December, 2003
restoring the financial and administrative
powers of Pradhan. Feeling aggrieved by
the said order of the District Magistrate
Ramvyas
Vishawakarma
(respondent
no.3) filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
162 of 2004 (Ramavyas Vishwakarma Vs.
District
Magistrate,
Sonbhadra
and
others). In the said writ petition initially
an interim order was granted by this Court
on 7th January, 2004. However, the said
writ petition was disposed of finally on 5th
March, 2004 by this Court and order
dated 7th January, 2004 was quashed with
a direction to the District Magistrate,
Sonbhadra to take final decision qua in
the proceedings initiated against the
Pradhan strictly in accordance with law.
The District Magistrate instead of getting
final enquiry conducted against the
Pradhan in accordance with the U.P.
Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules,
1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules
of 1997, has proceeded to pass an order
dated 2nd August,2004 whereby the
financial and administrative powers of the
Pradhan were restored with a direction
upon the Pradhan to deposit a sum of
Rs.19854/-. The order of the District
Magistrate
dated
2nd
August,
2004
restoring the financial and administrative
powers of the Pradhan was again
challenged before this Court by Sri
Ramvyas Vishwakarma (respondent no.-
3) by means of writ petition no.31601 of
2004. The writ petition filed by the
respondent no.3 was allowed, the order
dated 2nd August, 2004 was quashed vide
judgment and order dated 2nd March,
2005, in view of the provisions of Section
95 (1)(g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act, 1947 as also in view of the
judgment reported in 1999 (1) UPLBEC
718. The Court in the said judgment
recorded a categorically finding that since
the final enquiry has not been conducted
against the Pradhan and he has not been
exonerated of the charges leveled against
her, therefore, there is no question of
administrative and financial powers of the
Pradhan being restored.

3. The District Magistrate has now
passed an order dated 21st June,2005 in
alleged compliance of the judgment and
order of this Court dated 2nd March, 2005
whereby the earlier order dated 2nd
August, 2005 has been revoked and the
financial and administrative powers of the
Pradhan have again been ceased by
restoration of the order dated 30th
November, 2000. The order now passed
by the District Magistrate dated 2nd June,
2005
has
been
challenged
by
the
1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
petitioner by means of the present writ
petition amongst others on the ground that
under the provisions of Rules of 1997
specific
times
frame
for
holding
preliminary enquiry as well as for holding
final enquiry has been provided. The
authorities cannot keep the enquiry
pending for years and thereby interfere
with the rights of the elected Pradhan on
the basis of preliminary enquiry alone.

4. In order to appreciate the
contention so raised reference may be had
to Rule 8 of the Rules of 1997, which
regulates the time fixed for holding final
enquiry and reads as follows:

"8. Submitting the report to the
Government-[Enquiry
Officer
shall
conclude the enquiry within six months
from the date of receipt of complaint and
forw ard to State Government the records
of the enquiry which shall include-
(a)
the report prepared by him under
Rule-7;
(b)
the written statement of defence, if
any, of the person against whom the
enquiry has been held;
(c)
the oral and documentary evidence
produced during the course of the
enquiry;
(d)
written briefs, if any, filed during
the course of the enquiry; and
(e)
the orders, if any, made by the State
Government
and
the
Enquiry
Officer in regard to the enquiry."

5. The period may not mandatory
but still the authority's are required to act
under law with all promptness in the
proceedings initiated against the Pradhan
under Section 95 (1)(g) proviso of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act without any
uncalled for delay. It is to be kept in mind
that the Pradhans of Gram Panchayat are
elected
by
a
democratic
process,
interference in powers of the elected
representatives of the people by the
administrative authorities must be in strict
conformity with the statutory provision.

6. This Court, while entertaining the
present writ petition on 15th July, 2005
required the learned Standing Counsel to
seek
instructions
from
the
District
Magistrate, Sonbhadra as to whether any
final enquiry in terms of Rule 8 (a) of the
Rules of 1997, in respect of the
proceedings
initiated
against
the
petitioner, Shiv Devi, Pradhan of village
Jhanmsheela, District Sonbhadra, has
been submitted till date or not. The
learned Standing Counsel has made a
statement before this Court today on the
basis of the instructions so received from
the office of the District Magistrate,
Sonbhadra
that
final
enquiry
was
conducted by the Commissioner of
Division against the petitioner and the
Commissioner, in its report has held that
the charges as have been leveled against
the petitioner are found to be corrected.

7. From the instructions so received
by the learned Standing Counsel, it is
apparently clear that final enquiry as
contemplated under the provisions of
Rules of 1997 by a nominated District
Level Officer has not been conducted
against the Pradhan till date nor any final
enquiry report referable to the statutory
rules have been obtained by the District
Magistrate, Sonbhadra. It is further
apparent
that
the
Commissioner
of
Division was not nominated by the
District Magistrate as the district level
officer, to conduct the final enquiry
against the Pradhan under the provisions
of Rule of 1997. A period of three years
have
been
elapsed,
since
the
4 All] Shiv Kumar Akela and others V. Registrar, Societies Firms & Chits and others
1225
administrative and financial powers of the
Pradhan under Section 95 (1)(g) proviso
of the Act of 1947 were ceased. Fresh
elections of the Gram Pradhan are to be
held in near future.

8. In such circumstances, this Court
is prima facie of the opinion that the
respondent-authorities have failed to act
in
conformity
with
the
statutory
provisions, by not getting a final enquiry
conducted
against
the
Pradhan
(petitioner), by a nominated officer within
reasonable time. Therefore, they not be
permitted to continue with the ceasation
of financial and administrative powers of
the Pradhan.

9. The petitioner has made out a
prima facie case for grant of interim
order.

10. Till the next date of listing the
operation of the order dated 2nd June,
2005 passed by the District Magistrate,
Sonbhadra shall remain stayed and
respondents shall not interfere with the
administrative and financial powers of the
Pradhan (petitioner).

11. A copy of this order shall be
supplied to the learned counsel for the
petitioner on payment of usual charges by
27th July, 2005.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55898 of 2004

Shiv Kumar Akela, Advocate and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar, Societies Firms and Chits,
Under the Societies Registration Act, 1860,
Allahabad and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Smt. Sadhna Upadhya
Sri S.S.Rathore (in person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.M.A.Kazmi, CSC
Sri Ranvijay Singh, SC
Sri S.Prakash,
Sri T.P.Singh,
Sri Sidharth Singh
Sri Amit Sthalekar,
Sri V.B. Upadhaya

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226maintainability-writ
petition-against
High Court Bar Association Allahabadbeing
registered
under
Societies
Registration Act-member of the society
are the Advocates-an officer of Court-an
indispensable
constituent
of
'justice
delivery
system'-enjoys
privileged
position-references/ condolences-which
are Court proceeding at the request of
Bar Association-bar to ensure proper and
smooth functioning of Courts hence a
public functionary-Writ Petition heldmaintainable.

Held: Para 10,19,23 & 27

Court has provided accommodation to
the High Court Bar Association and
Advocate Association. Court provides