AJOY NATH RAY, CJ., ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is summarily taken up and disposed of.

( 2 ) IT is from an order passed by an Honble Single Judge dated 1. 7. 2005, whereby his Lordship refused to interfere with orders passed for seizing the financial and administrative powers of the pradhan.

( 3 ) IN the judgment under appeal his Lordship has recorded that the writ petitioner argued that the order had been passed without application of mind and was perverse and erroneous. His lordship has further recorded that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner was not able to demonstrate how the impugned order was perverse or erroneous. Just before concluding the judgment, his Lordship has said as follows: "no other point was argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner".

( 4 ) SEVERAL arguments other than the above were sought to be advanced before us on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner. One of those, e. g. was Rule-3 sub rule (2) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules,. 1997, which states that the complaint is to be made in a particular way by way of affidavit etc was not followed.

( 5 ) THE position th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document