SATISH CHANDRA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who has argued on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 contemplates that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up -Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up -Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government. .. In the present case, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such enquiry has been conducted. Whether any such enquiry has been conducted or not, is a question of fact, for which the counter -affidavit is required to be filed but in view of my decision passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27788 of 2003, Smt. Krishna Devi v. Government of U.P., through Secretary, Panchayat Raj Anabhag, U.P., Lucknow and Ors., decided on 29.9.2003 since the cessation of Pradhan's financial and administrative powers does not deprive him of any statutory right conferred on him under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, petitioner should have no grievance as any of his rights are not violated or infringed so as to warrant interference with impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) This being factual and legal position, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed as such.