NANUKI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition on 16-2-1993 learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit and one week was granted to the Petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. However, no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that petition may be heard without counter affidavit as on the legal question involved, Petitioner is entitled for the relief. Learned Standing Counsel also agreed that the petition may be disposed of at this stage. The writ petition is thus being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are that Petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Bibiyapur Kayasthan, Pargana and Tahsil Bareilly. On certain complaints Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bareilly by his order dated 22-9-1992 suspended Petitioner from the office of Pradhan The aforesaid order of suspension was challenged in revision before Respondent No. 2. Revision has been dismissed on 24-11-1992. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the material on record.