JUDGMENT :

Yashwant Varma, J.

This batch of writ petitions raises the question of the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to pass orders of surcharge as envisaged under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1947 ["the Act"]. The principal contention which has been addressed is to the lack of jurisdiction inhering in the District Magistrate to exercise powers comprised in the aforementioned provision. Additionally it has been urged that the impugned orders imposing surcharge upon the petitioners have been passed in clear violation of Chapter XIII of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules 1947 [hereinafter for the sake of brevity to be referred to as "the Rules"] and more particularly Rules 256-259 as comprised in that Chapter.

2. Bearing in mind the fact that the issue was being raised in repeated petitions, the Court had called upon the State respondents to file affidavits. The matter then again arose in the leading writ petition in which the learned Chief Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions and address submissions. On 20 August 2019, this Court passed a detailed order indicating and identifying the issues which arose. Pursuant to the liberty so granted, the State has filed an affidavit dealing with the legal issues raised and the learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the said affidavit be adopted in all writ petitions insofar as the legal questions are concerned. The State has also chosen to file independent affidavits in some of the writ petitions. The affidavit dealing with the legal issues was circulated amongst the learned counsels for parties with liberty to respond. Pursuant to that order, responses have been filed by and on behalf of the petitioners. Thereafter the matter was heard and judgment reserved. Before proceeding to deal with the legal issues that have been addressed, the Court deems it apposite to briefly notice the salient facts of each writ petition.

Writ-C No. 24902 of 2019

3. The petition impugns an order dated 06 March 2019 passed by the Chief Development Officer and consequential orders imposing surcharge upon the petitioner. The order records that it is being issued with the approval of the District Magistrate. These orders came to be passed even prior to the issuance of a show cause notice dated 30 May 2019 purporting to initiate proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act.

Writ-C No. 25964 of 2019

4. The petition impugns orders passed pursuant to directions issued by the District Magistrate holding the petitioner liable to pay surcharge.

Writ-C No. 26493 of 2019

5. The writ petition assails an order imposing surcharge during the pendency of an enquiry initiated under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act read with the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997 ["the 1997 Rules"]. The order impugned has been passed pending a final enquiry and upon the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan being ceased.

Writ-C No. 29989 of 2019

6. This petition impugns the order of the District Magistrate dated 12 September 2018 seeking to recover surcharge under Section 27 of the Act pending conclusion of enquiry proceedings under the 1997 Rules.

Writ-C No. 30016 of 2019

7. This petition similarly challenges an order passed by the District Magistrate in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 27 of the Act pending conclusion of enquiry proceedings initiated under the 1997 Rules.

Writ-C No. 17665 of 2019

8. The petition challenges the order of the District Magistrate passed under Section 27 of the Act. Additionally challenge is laid to the order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the same.

Writ-C No. 12607 of 2019

9. This petition has been preferred by an erstwhile Pradhan assailing the order of the District Magistrate imposing surcharge in purported exercise of powers comprised in Section 27 of the Act.

Writ-C No. 2207