IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar, J.
SATISH CHANDRA TRIPATHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 5600 Of 2003
Decided On : 11/17/2003
Section 95(1)(g) - U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Prima facie findings of financial and other irregularities - Exercise of powers and functions by committee
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner argued that under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan found to have committed irregularities should cease to exercise financial and administrative powers until exonerated in a final enquiry. The petitioner claimed that no such enquiry had been conducted.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cessation of the Pradhan's financial and administrative powers did not deprive him of any statutory rights conferred under the Act, and therefore, the petitioner had no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Enquiry into financial and other irregularities, exercise of powers by committee, violation of statutory rights
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner's rights were not violated or infringed by the cessation of powers, as no statutory rights were affected.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it had no force based on the factual and legal position.
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who has argued on behalf of the respondents.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 contemplates that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan 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.
( 3 ) IN the present case, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such enquiry has been conducted. Whether any such enquiry has been conducted or not, is a question of fact, for which the counter-affidavit is required to be filed but in view of my decision passed in Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 27788 of 2003, Smt. Krishna Devi v. Government of U. P. , through secretary, Panchayat Raj Anabhag, U. P. , Lucknow and Ors. , decided on 29. 9. 2003 since the cessation of Pradhans financial and administrative powers does not deprive him of any statutory right conferred on him under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, petitioner should have no grievance as any of his rights are not violated or infringed so as to warrant interference with impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 4 ) THIS being factual and legal position, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed as such.
.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.