MOHD. HANEEF Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging order dated 29.05.2017, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Pratapgarh, by which, three members Committee has been constituted and charge of the village Pradhan has also been handed over to the said Committee for exercising the powers of Gram Pradhan.

(3.) The facts of the present care are that petitioner, claiming himself to be belonging to a backward caste (Kuraishi), contested the election of Gram Pradhan for a seat reserved for backward class. Petitioner was declared successful on 112.2015. After his succeeding in election, a complaint was made that he had wrongly obtained the caste certificate of belonging to a backward caste, while he does not belong to a backward caste. After holding an inquiry, the District Level Committee by order dated 21.12.2016 cancelled the backward caste certificate issued in his favour, finding that he does not belong to a backward caste. Against the said order, petitioner claims to have filed an appeal before the Regional Level Committee, which is pending till date and no stay order has been granted to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 10.02.2017 issued a show cause notice seeking an explanation as to why action should not be taken against him under Sec. 95 (1)(g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The said matter is also pending till date. Petitioner states that now by the impugned order dated 29.05.2017 Three Member Committee has been constituted to exercise the financial and administrative powers of Gram Pradhan.