KAMLI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri K. Sahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. K. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition and Sri Ghanshyamji Dwivedi, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE short question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the authority is required to give a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the elected Pradhan before ceasing the financial and administrative powers under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. THEre is a divergence of opinion through various judgments of this Court. THE Court, in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auriaya and others, 1999 (90) RD 246, has held that an opportunity is required to be given to the Pradhan under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act before ceasing the financial and administrative powers. Similar view has been given in Chandrajit Raj Bhar v. District Magistrate, Pilibhit and others, 2002 (93) RD 139 : 2002 (1) AWC 674 ; Malti Devi v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (1) UPLBEC 920 : 2008 (2) AWC 1837, Mohd. Ahsan v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 483 and Smt. Prabha Dixit v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 171.

(3.) THE provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and Section 29 of the U. P. Kshettra and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam are analogous. For facility, the said provisions are quoted hereinbelow :-