SHIV PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Chaube, the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner is the elected Pradhan and by the impugned order dated 23.8.2008 the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner was ceased under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. It transpires that on Tehsil Diwas, a complaint was made by some of the villagers against the petitioner on 6.5.2008 and, on that complaint, the District Magistrate passed an order directing the District Panchayat Raj Officer to make an enquiry. This order is found on the record of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, which the Court has perused. Based on this direction, it transpires that the Block Development Officer as well as the District Panchayat Raj Officer submitted their separate reports and based on these reports, a show cause notice dated 23.6.2008 was issued which is alleged to have been pasted on the house of the petitioner. Since no reply was furnished, the impugned order was passed ceasing the financial and administrative powers. THE petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid procedure, it is clear that a complaint against the Pradhan has to be accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant verified before a Notary. Sub-clause (5) of Rule 3 indicates that a complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules shall not be entertained. The usage of the word "shall" is important and in my opinion, is mandatory. The non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1997 would vitiate any inquiry made pursuant to such non-compliance of the Rules.