SONIYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was elected as Pradhan of Village Pali Mukimpur, Tehsil Atrauli, District Aligarh in 2010, had filed Writ Petition No.9932 of 2013 for quashing the order dated 6th February, 2013 that was passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh exercising powers under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to cease the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan with a further direction that the said powers shall be performed by a Committee of three members. The learned Judge did not accept the plea of the petitioner for quashing the said order but, in view of the fact that an Enquiry Officer had been appointed to hold the enquiry against the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition by the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2013 with a direction to the District Magistrate to take a final decision in the matter. This Special Appeal has been filed for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the learned Judge and for quashing the order dated 6th February, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court Rules') is not maintainable for the reason that it has been filed against a judgment rendered in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of an order of a Tribunal made in exercise of jurisdiction under the State Act with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the order passed by the District Magistrate under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act cannot be said to be an order of a Tribunal and, therefore, the Special Appeal would be maintainable.