Mohan Singh vs State of U.P. and others

Vineet Saran, J.

Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dinesh Rahi, learned holding brief of Sri Virendra Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 4 and have perused the record.

The respondent No. 4 Smt. Ram Kali is in an elected Gram Pradhan of the village in question. On a complaint filed by the petitioner, the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan (respondent No. 4) had been ceased by the District Magistrate on 4.4.2008. The said order dated 4.4.2008 has not been filed alongwith this writ petition. However, after enquiry the District Magistrate has restored back the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan (respondent No. 4). The petitioner has also not filed said order of the District Magistrate restoring the powers of the Pradhan. All that the petitioner has filed is a communication dated 8.6.2009 of the Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari wherein it is stated that after the enquiry was completed, the District Magistrate has given his approval for withdrawing the earlier order whereby the certain restrictions have been imposed on the operation of the accounts of the Gram Pradhan by the earlier order.

The two main orders, that is orders dated 4.4.2008 and 8.6.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, have not been filed along with this writ petition. In the absence of the said orders, no decision can be taken as to whether the order of withdrawal was proper or not. With regard to nonfiling of the said orders, all that the petitioner has stated (in paragraph 11 of the writ petition) is that, the petitioner approached the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not get the said orders. The said explanation is absolutely vague.

On the one hand, Sri M.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 4.4.2008 was not passed under Section 9(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act but in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it has been stated that it was obligatory upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to constitute a three member Enquiry Committee as required under the proviso of Section 9(1)(g) of the Act. It is thus not understood as to what is the stand of the petitioner, that is, under which provision the order dated 4.4.2008 (which has not even been filed) had been passed. As such, in these circumstances, no interference is called for in this writ petition.

Further, the preliminary objection of the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent that the petitioner, who is merely a complainant, has no right to file this writ petition, has also force. Such view is taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amin Khan v. State of U.P., 2008 (2) AWC 2002. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it has been held that "in case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most examined as a witness in the enquiry but the cannot be permitted to become a party in the Zis".

In another decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 18839 of 2008 (Sharwan Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P.), decided on 11.4.2008, this Court, while dismissing the said writ petition filed on behalf of the complainant, held as under :

"A member of the Gram Sabha has been given a right to make a complaint along with the affidavit bringing to the notice that the allegations of misuse of powers and irregularities. The complainant, however, is not a prosecutor. The matter thereafter rests between the District Magistrate and the Pradhan. The Enquiry Officer may, in the proceedings, examine the complainant to prove the allegations or if there is any doubt with regard to charges. The complainant has neither been given right to lead evidence as a prosecutor nor has been given any active in the enquiry.

An office of the Pradhan is elected office. The State Government has power to remove the Pradhan, if the office is misused or any serious irregularity is committed. This power may not be converted into a Us between the complainant and the Pradhan in which the complainant may be given a right to challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate.

The order of the District Magistrate must satisfy the tests of reasonableness, nonarbitrariness and rationality. If there are allegations, of malafide or that the order is wholly capricious, the Court may interfere in the matter. In a case where the District Magistrate is satisfied with the reply given by the Pradhan or has made enquiry and found that the allegations prima facie established were not made out, he may drop the proceedings. The submissions, that the enquiry must be concluded even if the District Magistrate finds that the proceedings were wrongly initiated, is not supported by the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the Rules of 1977."

Thus, in my view, the petitioner does not have locus standi to maintain this writ petition.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.