MAHENDRA PAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 3 who is Pradhan of Gaon Sabha was suspended by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17-8-1992 under Sec. 95 (1) (gg) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter (1) (g) of the Act for his removal. On the basis of the inquiry report, the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 19-5-1993 has dropped the charges against the respondent No. 3 and has reinstated him. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, one of whom is Up-Pradhan and others are the members of the same Gaon Sabha of which respondent No. 3 i. the Pradhan.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) This Court in the case of Nazakat Husain Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 791, has held that Up-Pradhan has no locus standi to be impleaded in the revision filed by the Pradhan against the order of his suspension under Sec. 95 (1) (gg) of the Act. In Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Commissioner, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1285, the Court has laid down that members of the Gaon Sabha have no locus standi to challenge, by means of writ petition, the order of setting aside the suspension order of a Pradhan. The law laid by this Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad, (supra) squarely covers the controversy in the instant case. The petitioners are Up-Pradhan and the members of the Gaon Sahha and, as such, they have uo locus standi to challenge the impugned order.