RIYAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has wrongly, illegally and without jurisdiction has been passed by the opposite party no.2/ District Magistrate, Sitapur under Sec. 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (here- in-after referred as the Act), whereas the order could have only been passed under Sec. 12-H of the Act and accordingly the provisions of Sec. 11-B, Sec. 11-C and 12 are to be complied on account of death of Gram Pradhan.

(3.) He further submits that in case the order would have been passed under Sec. 12-H, the provisions of Sec. 11-B would come to operate and in such situation an Administrative Committee or Administrator is be appointed under Sec. 11- B(2). He further submits that since the term of Gram Sabha in question is more than six months, therefore as per proviso appended to Sec. 12-H, the said provision would be applicable and not Sec. 12-J. He further submits that Sec. 12-J would be applicable only in case, the term of Gram Panchayat is less than six months and there is no requirement of election under Sec. 12-H, therefore the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Pushpendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. through the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, U.P. Lucknow and Others; [2010 (110) RD 46].