ANJUM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. She was elected as Adhyaksha. The writ petition was filed by her calling in question the order, which is purportedly traceable to the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Appellant also filed an Application for staying the impugned order. The learned Single Judge by fairly elaborate order, prima facie, concluded that the ground was made out for withdrawal of the financial and administrative powers. Hence, the Appeal.

(2.) We heard Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, who seeks to intervene.

(3.) Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel would submit that this is a case, where the learned Single Judge has erred in refusing the interim order. According to him, it would amount to a judgment within the meaning of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules for the reason that the order is a decision affecting vital rights of the parties. He would submit that a preliminary inquiry was held and there was no finding given by the Inquiry Officer within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Rules made, which convinced even the Government.