SUMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15.07.2005 (Annexure - 12 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 29.07.2005 (Annexure -15 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.3, whereby financial powers of the petitioner, a Block Pramukh, has been withdrawn, and a committee has been constituted to exercise the powers under Section 16 of D.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat of Block Narsan (District - Haridwar) through the elections held in the year 2000. Some complaints were made against the petitioner to the Government and District Administration Officer, which according to the petitioner, are false and frivolous. The First Information Report (copy Annexure -I) was lodged on 24.07.2002 by Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee with Police Station, Manglore, on the basis of which crime No. 266 of 2002, was registered under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the petitioner and her husband. According to the allegations in the First Information Report, 350 quintals of wheat was recovered from a godown, where it was allegedly kept for being sold in black market by the husband of the petitioner. The wheat was actually required to be distributed among the labourers as wages for the work done by them under certain schemes. According to the petitioner, she has nothing to do with the incident and she challenged the First Information Report and obtained an interim order from this Court. However, a charge sheet (Annexure -7) regarding offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under Section 420, 406, 409 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code was submitted against the petitioner, her husband and her brother -in -law. Petitioner alleges that rival political group working against her is bent upon to harass her. Said group got a show cause notice dated 08.06.2004 (Annexure -10) issued against her to show as to why action under Section 16(1) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats & Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, be not taken against her. The petitioner replied the said notice on 26.07.2004 (copy Annexure -II ). It is further alleged that thereafter, nothing was transpired and without making any enquiry as required under U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up -Pramukhs, Adyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (herein after referred as the Rules), impugned order dated 15.07.2005 (Annexure -12) was passed by respondent No.1 regarding decision to withdraw financial powers of the petitioner as Block Pramukh. Vide order -dated 29.07.2005 (Annexure -15), District Magistrate communicated the appointment of three members Committee (which included respondent No.4) to exercise the financial and administrative powers of Block Pramukh. It is alleged in the petition that respondent No. 4 -Shri Braham Pal Singh used his political clout to exercise the powers of the office held by the petitioner. Challenging the impugned orders on the ground that the same were passed in violation of the law, this petition was filed by the petitioner.

(3.) SEPARATE counter affidavits were filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, apart from an affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it is admitted that the petitioner was elected as Block Pramukh. It is also admitted that complaints were received against the petitioner and her husband, and a First Information Report was also lodged. However, it is denied that the complaints or the First Information Report, were false. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the powers under Section 16 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats & Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (for brevity herein -after the Act), were exercised after giving due show cause notice to the petitioner and impugned orders were passed after considering her reply to the notice. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, an enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.