SHIV KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 18/10/2021, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The petitioner-appellant instituted the writ petition, giving rise to this appeal, asking for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to decide proceedings under Sec. 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), pending before him against respondent no.3, Chamela Devi, the Village Pradhan, within some stipulated period of time as the Court may determine.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, Chamela Devi was elected as the Village Pradyan of Village Shivlal Ka Pura, Post Gohri, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj in the elections held in the year 2016. It is the petitioner-appellant's case that respondent no.3 committed misfeasance in office during her tenure. The petitioner-appellant, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the writ petitioner, instituted a Public Interest Litigation No. 1944 of 2020, Shiv Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, seeking a direction to the District Authorities to make an inquiry into those acts of misfeasance alleged, and cause an FIR to be lodged for the offence of the misappropriation and embezzlement of public moneys. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 8/2/2021 disposed of the writ petition virtually dismissing it on the ground of availability of an efficacious statutory remedy. That remedy was said to be available under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 (for short, 'the Rules of 1997'). In fact, the said rules are referable to the powers available to the State Government, or on its behalf with the District Magistrate under Sec. 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947.

(3.) The writ petitioner on 10/5/2021 moved a complaint to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj under Sec. 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947, complaining of misdemeanour in office against respondent no.3, involving defalcation of public money. There was inaction on the District Magistrate's part to proceed further on the said complaint. This led the writ petitioner to move the present petition, seeking a mandamus in the terms prayed.