# Smt. Ramawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 682 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-09-05 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 948 of 2002 - **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. Ashok Bhushan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ramawati-devi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39954 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947- Section 95 (1) (g)- Proviso- financial power of village Pradhan- only can be ceased by the District Magistrate only- District Panchayat Adhikari has no such power- order passed by DPRO stopping the operation of Bank account- amounts to ceaser of financial power of village Pradhan- can not sustain in eye of law. Held- para 7 The rule it appears that it is only District Magistrate who can exercise such power and the District Panchayat Raj Officer has no such power to stop operation of Bank Account which in effect amounts to taking away the financial power. Accordingly the District Panchayat Raj Officer has no jurisdiction or authority under law to exercise such power and the exercise of such power is absolutely arbitrary accordingly the order dated 22.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 4 is quashed. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 26. In view of the foregoing discussions and the reasons given we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.9.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J. THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Special Appeal No. 948 of 2002 Smt. Ramawati Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.C. Singh Sri S.P. Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ranvijay Singh U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947- Section 95 (1) (g)- Proviso- financial power of village Pradhan- only can be ceased by the District Magistrate only- District Panchayat Adhikari has no such power- order passed by DPRO stopping the operation of Bank account- amounts to ceaser of financial power of village Pradhan- can not sustain in eye of law. Held- para 7 The rule it appears that it is only District Magistrate who can exercise such power and the District Panchayat Raj Officer has no such power to stop operation of Bank Account which in effect amounts to taking away the financial power. Accordingly the District Panchayat Raj Officer has no jurisdiction or authority under law to exercise such power and the exercise of such power is absolutely arbitrary accordingly the order dated 22.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 4 is quashed. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.K.Sen, C.J.) 1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the State - respondent. 2. This special appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ no. 35676 of 2000 dated 29.8.2002, where the impugned order dated 21/22.6.2002 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kushinagar at Padrauna has been challenged. 3. The learned Single Judge held that stoppage of Bank Accounts does not amount to seizure or taking away of financial power. We are unable to agree with such view taken by the learned Single Judge. In effect when an order has been passed stopping the operation of the Bank Account, the same takes away the financial power of the Pradhan, such order can only be passed by the District Magistrate. 4. Section 95 (1) (g) Proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 gives power to cease financial and administrative power of Pradhan. "Section 95. Inspection- (1) The State Government may - (a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ...... (d) ...... (e) ...... (f) ..... http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Smt. Ramawati Devi V. State of U.P. and others 683 (g) ( "remove a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat ") or a joint committee or Bhumi Prabhandhak, Samiti (***) or a Panch Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he - (i) absents himself without sufficient cause from more than three consecutive meetings or sittings. (ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving more turpitude. (iii) Has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest or (iv) Being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in polities, or (v) Suffers from any of the disqualification mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A. (Provided that where in an enquiry held by such persons and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or UpPradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions which shall until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.)" 5. Rules have been framed namely the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) enquiry Rules 1997. The enquiry which is referred to in section 95 (1) (g) proviso is enquiry which is held in accordance with 1997 Rules. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rule refers to preliminary enquiry. Rule 4 is quoted as below : "4. Preliminary Enquiry- (1) The State Government may on the receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or otherwise order to the District Panchayat Raj Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to find out if there is a prima facie case for a formal inquiry in the matter. (2) The District Panchayat Raj Officer shall conduct the preliminary inquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within a fortnight of his having been so ordered." 6. It has been stated before us that power under section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act has been delegated to the District Magistrate and the order under Section 95 (1) (g) can only be passed by the Collector. 7. On proper interpretation of the said section and the rule it appears that it is only District Magistrate who can exercise, such power and the District Panchayat Raj Officer has no such power to stop operation of Bank Account which in effect amounts to taking away the financial power. Accordingly the District Panchayat Raj Officer has no jurisdiction or authority under law to exercise such power and the exercise of such power is absolutely arbitrary accordingly the order dated 22.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 4 is quashed. 8. The view which we have taken above practically disposes of the writ http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the special appeal is allowed. Both the writ petition and the special appeal including application for interim relief before us stands disposed of. 9. It is however made clear that this order shall not prevent the competent authority under the aforesaid Act to take appropriate step in accordance with law if the situation so permits. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.9.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J. THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J. Special Appeal No. 519 of 2000 Ram Ugrah ...Petitioner Versus State of UP and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ram Vijay Singh S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Service law-Absorption- appellants earlier worked as Collection peon w.e.f. 1.2.67 to 1.8.75- after retrenchment again- applied for absorption on 12.12.86 while G.O. dated 28.5.81 providing relaxation of upper age limit for 10 years was already in operation- entitled for absorption- direction issued for consideration within 3 months. Held- para 12 Vide Government order dated 21.7.84, the benefits provided in the Government order dated 23.5.81 was extended till 22.5.87. From a perusal of paragraph 2 kha of the Government order dated 6.7.77 it is clear that the State Government had relaxed the upper age limit in the case of absorption of employees retrenched from Class III and IV posts to the extent the services rendered prior to retrenchment and for the period after retrenchment. However, under the Government order dated 23.5.81 the relaxation of upper age limit, as provided in the earlier Government order dated 6.7.1977, was continued subject to the maximum relaxation of age of ten years only. It is not in dispute that when the appellants- writ petitioners made an application for absorption on 12.12.86 there was relaxation in Upper age limit for a maximum period of ten years, and therefore, they were liable to be considered for absorption by giving age relaxation of ten years, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganga and another v. Chief Development Officer and others. (supra). (Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agarwal, J.) 1. Special Appeal No. 519 of 2000 has been filed by Ram Ugrah against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the learned single Judge in civil misc. writ petition no. 29840 of 2000, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and held that there is no error in the decision making process so far as the discretion exercised by the authorities in the matter of the age relaxation is concerned. 2. Special Appeal No. 520 of 2000 has been filed by Ram Sumer against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in civil misc. writ petition no. 29839 of 2000, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed with similar observation.