JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Bajpai, Addl. C.S.C. for the State and Sri A.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh for the opposite party No. 4.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4 i.e. the three Members Committee constituted for discharging the duties of Panchayat Maharajganj.

3. Counter affidavits filed today, are taken on record.

4. Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as he will argue on the basis of admitted facts and the settled legal position.

5. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging an order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of U.P., by which the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, who is the elected Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj, has been seized, in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (in short "Act of 1961"). By the same order Commissioner Gorakhpur Division has been appointed the Inquiry Officer to conduct final inquiry against the petitioner.

6. It is not in dispute that today the term of the petitioner is expiring. However, the order was passed on 24.11.2020 and this petition was filed on 09.12.2020 and learned Counsel for the petitioner presses for an adjudication on the validity of impugned action as it can have consequences for the petitioner.

7. The contention of Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner is firstly, that prior to passing of this order neither any preliminary inquiry was ordered or conducted nor any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as is mandatory. Such preliminary inquiry is to be conducted by the District Magistrate as per Rules. He relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Versus State of U.P. and Others in Writ Petition No. 62427(MS) of 2008 decided on 26.10.2010 and in the case of Shamim Versus State of U.P. and Others in Special Appeal No. 65 of 2017 decided on 01.05.2018 wherein pari-materia provisions contained in Municipalities Act, 1916 i.e. Section 48(2) thereof and Section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Rules made thereunder were considered and it was held that even if the provisions for cessation of financial and administrative powers and removal of elected person does not specifically require the giving of opportunity, before passing such orders seizing his power or removing him, Principles of Natural Justice have to be read into such provisions and opportunity by way of show cause notice is to be given and reply submitted is required to be considered even if briefly but with due applications of mind. A Division Bench judgment Smt. Kesari Devi Versus State of U.P. and Others reported in 2005(4) AWC 3563 pertaining to the Act of 1961 and Rules made thereunder has also been relied. Therefore, according to him, the action is void and the impugned order is unsustainable.

8. The other contention is that the conduct of a preliminary inquiry is not only necessary for seizing of financial and administrative powers, but also for the purposes of initiation of final inquiry as the decision to initiate the final inquiry is to be based on such preliminary inquiry. Therefore, initiation of final inquiry by the impugned order and assigning of such inquiry to Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, is void and liable to be set aside.

9. Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel was specifically confronted as to whether it is the mandate of the Full Bench decision in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari (Supra) as also the other decisions on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner, that a sh