Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri K. Sahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition and Sri Ghanshyamji Dwivedi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the authority is required to give a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the elected Pradhan before ceasing the financial and administrative powers under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. There is a divergence of opinion through various judgments of this Court. The Court, in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auriaya and others, 1999 (90) RD 246, has held that an opportunity is required to be given to the Pradhan under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act before ceasing the financial and administrative powers. Similar view has been given in Chandrajit Raj Bhar v. District Magistrate, Pilibhit and others, 2002 (93) RD 139; Malti Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2623 (All); Mohd. Ahsan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 483 and Smt. Prabha Dix