By the Court.—The application for leave to appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.1.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 60988 of 2007 Smt. Nirmala Verma v. State of U.P. and others.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal are that one Smt. Nirmala Verma, respondent No. 4 had been elected as a Gram Pradhan and proceedings under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act) had been initiated against her on certain charges. The applicant claims himself to be the complainant on the basis whereof enquiry has been initiated. The District Magistrate found the charges prima facie established on the preliminary enquiry report and passed the order depriving the said respondent No. 4 from exercising financial and executive powers till regular enquiry is concluded for which he also appointed as Enquiry Officer. The District Magistrate further appointed a three Members Committee to look after the day to day work of the Gram Sabha. The applicant is also one of the members of the said Committee. The said respondent No. 4 challenged the order of the District Magistrate dated 22-11-2007 by means of writ petition No. 60988 of 2007 which has been allowed. The order dated 22-11-2007 withdrawing the administrative and financial powers of the said respondent No. 4 has been quashed. However, the learned Single Judge has directed that the regular enquiry be concluded within two months. The period whereof shall expire on 9-3-2008.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 regarding the right of the appellant who is the complainant and has been appointed as one of the three Members Committee to perform the duties of the Pradhan pending regular enquiry on the ground that the said applicant being the complainant can merely be a witness and not a party to the lis. More so, he is the beneficiary of the order depriving the said respondent from exercising her financial and executive powers, he cannot be permitted to file the appeal. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.

4. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Sri R.K. Awasthi, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently opposed the preliminary objection contending that the petitioner is a citizen of the country and being the resident of the village has a legal right to raise his grievance against the Village Pradhan and therefore being a complainant he has right to file an application for maintaining the appeal. More so, he is one of members of the three Members Committee appointed to look after the work of the Pradhan, he can maintain the appeal.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Admittedly, the applicant is a complainant and has also been included by the District Magistrate in the three Members Committee to look after the work of the Pradhan pending final enquiry. The issue as to whether such a beneficiary of order, impugned in writ petition could be heard by a Court was considered at length by the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) was a member in Smt. Kesari Devi v. State of U.P. and others, (2005) 4 A.W.C. 3563 wherein after noticing large number of judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court reached the conclusion that such an applicant cannot be a party in litigation for the reason that he cannot be a person aggrieved. The said judgement was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19761 of 2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 3-10-2005.

7. In Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1997) 4 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue of locus standi while considering the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and held that under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to ma