By the Court.—Heard Sri Sushil Kumar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

2. According to the pleadings contained in writ petition No. 64500 of 2006 the petitioner filed complaint dated 9.10.2006 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gunnaur (respondent No. 3) against Raghunath Singh (respondent No. 4) about non-distribution of kerosene oil in the month of September, 2006. Copy of the complaint is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is contended vide para 5 of the writ petition that the petition is being filed through Smt. Siya Pyari Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pusawali, Block Junawai. It is further pleaded (vide para 10 of the writ petition) that another complaint was made on 17.11.2006 and several other complaints were also made before the Senior Supply Inspector, Gunnaur (respondent No. 2) and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gunnaur. (Respondent No. 3). Copies of such complaints have been filed as Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to be issued directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gunnaur district Budaun to pass appropriate order on the complaint of the petitioner.

4. From perusal of Memorandum of Writ Petition and the complaints referred to above, it is clear that Smt. Siya Pyari has filed this writ petition in her capacity as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pusawali.

5. The Court raised preliminary objection regarding the writ petition being filed by a private Counsel and not through Standing Counsel as prescribed under law as there is no resolution of Gram Sabha for this purpose nor permission has been obtained from the Collector to engage private Counsel.

6. Case was taken up on 29.11.2006 but was directed to be taken up on the next day as fresh in order to enable the learned Counsel for the parties to study the issue and address the Court regarding maintainability of the writ petition through ‘private Counsel’.

7. When the case was taken up on 30.11.2006, the learned Counsel at the out set informed that another writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13920 of 2004) through him (as Private Counsel) has been entertained by this Court and an interim order has been passed. The learned Counsel further submitted that no objection was raised by the respondents or the Court in that case on this score. The Record of said writ petition No. 13920 of 2004 was also requisitioned. Sri Sushil Kumar, Advocate, appears for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions. Record of the writ petition No. 13920 of 2004 shows that it is not admitted as yet. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up and decided together.

8. Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel drew our attention to Section 127-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which reads as under:

“127-B. Panel Lawyers.—(1) The State Government may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed appoint, either generally or in any case or for any specified class of cases, in respect of Gaon Sabhas of such local areas as may be specified, one or more legal practitioners to be called panel lawyers.

(2) A panel lawyer may subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), appear, plead and act, without any written authority on behalf of any Gaon Sabha of the area for which he is appointed before any Court in any suit or in other case, of which he has charge, by or against the Gaon Sabha.

(3) A panel lawyer in any Court shall be the agent of the Gaon Sabha of the area for which he is appointed for the purpose of receiving processes against such Gaon Sabha issued by such Court.

(4) No panel lawyer shall, without the prior sanction of the Land Management Committee accorded by its resolution, enter into any agreement or compromise with reference to, or withdraw from any suit or other proceeding on behalf of a Gaon Sa