Jiut Ram Nishad vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner, the standing Counsel and perused the materials on record.

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mirzapur ceased the power of operation of accounts by respondent No. 7, Pradhan of village Raipuriya, District Mirzapur upon a complaint made by the petitioner. A notice dated 21.11.2007 was issued to the Pradhan by the Block Development Officer alleging illegal withdrawal of Rs. 1767847/-during the period 2.7.2005 to 31.8.2007. As no reply was filed by respondent No. 7-Pradhan, the District Magistrate, Mirzapur vide his order dated 15.4.2008, restrained the village Pradhan from operating the accounts and ordered enquiry in the matter appointing the Assistant Director, Fisheries as Enquiry Officer and for his assistance Additional Engineer (Rural Engineering Services), Jamalpur, Mirzapur directing them to submit enquiry report within one month. The petitioner who is complainant in the case, requested the DPRO to provide copies of records of the development works done by village Pradhan during the period 2004 - 2008 which were not provided to him.

The impugned order dated 11.6.2008 has thereafter been passed by the District Magistrate exonerating respondent No. 7-village Pradhan of the charges and restored the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan.

Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that enquiry has not been conducted properly, hence an application was submitted by him to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur for providing copies of orders dated 21.11.2007, 15.4.2008, 26.4.2008 passed by Block Development Officer, order dated 24.12.2007 passed by DPRO and order dated 27.5.08 constituting three members committee and other papers which have not been provided to him.

An objection has been raised by the standing Counsel and the Counsel that writ petition filed by the petitioner who is complainant in the matter, is not maintainable in view of in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 177 of 2008, Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008(4) ADJ 559, holding that appellant therein who was complainant in the proceedings u/s 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and also a member of three members committee, does not come within the ambit of "person aggrieved" and as such special appeal at his instance is not maintainable.

In rebuttal, counsellor the petitioner has relied upon paragraph No. 16 of the decision in Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, wherein it has been held that where there as any allegation of violation of statutory rules which have been brought to the notice of the authorities and if the authorities concerned do not perform their statutory obligation as in the present case, any aggrieved citizen can always bring to the notice of the High Court the inaction of the statutory authorities and in such event, the High Court may pass appropriate orders.

The authority relied upon by the Counsel petitioner does not support the petitioner for two reasons, firstly that on the complaint made by the petitioner, appropriate action was taken by the authorities, hence it cannot be said the authorities remained unactioned, and secondly that Mehsana District Cooperative Bank''s case (supra) pertains to Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder, whereas the present case relates to powers exercised by the District Magistrate u/s 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Division Bench in Amin Khan''s case (supra) has considered the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and has come to the conclusion that complainant has no locus standi in the matter as he does not come within the ambit of "person aggrieved", as such proceedings at his instance is not maintainable.

So far as the question of non supply of copies of different orders/documents to the petitioner is concerned and the petitioner requires those documents, he can do so under Right to Information Act but has no legal right to ask for documents of enquiry and orders passed by the authorities otherwise than in accordance with law.

For all the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to intenere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.