SITAPATI Vs. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Bhanot, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Subhash Rathi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner who is the elected Village Pradhan has called in question a notification dated 23 August 2016 promulgated under Section 3 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (1916 Act). By virtue of the said notification, the area comprised in Village Panchayat Badauni, Vikas Khand Bankati in District Basti has been declared to be a "transitional area". Challenge is additionally laid to an order dated 9 June 2016 whereby objections to the proposed notification under Section 3 came to be disposed of. The petitioner has additionally sought quashing of a Government Order dated 28 August 2014 enumerating guiding factors which may be taken into consideration by the respondents for the purposes of declaring transitional areas as contemplated by Section 3 of the 1916 Act read along with Article 243Q of the Constitution. The petitioner lastly seeks a restraint upon the respondents from interfering in her functioning as the elected Village Pradhan.

(3.) While Sri Ajay Bhanot, the learned Senior Counsel sought to and did address us on the merits of the challenge laid to the notification aforementioned, in our considered view, the writ petition is liable to fail on account of the following reasons.