High Court

passed in Writ-C No. 37260 of 2024 filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Etah in proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

3. The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner filed certain complaint against the Pradhan (appellant herein) and in pursuance whereof an inquiry was instituted against the appellant and the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. An order dated 30.01.2023 was passed by the District Magistrate, Etah seizing the administrative and financial powers of the Gram Pradhan and appointing a three members committee to enquire into the complaint. The order was subjected to challenge by the appellant herein by filing Writ-C No. 6504 of 2023. The writ petition was allowed by order dated

03.03.2023 on the ground that order dated 30.01.2023 was a cryptic order. The operative part of the order of writ Court dated

03.03.2023 is as follows:- "Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.01.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Etah (respondent No.2) is hereby set aside qua to suspension of administrative and financial powers as well as appointment of three members committee and matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order taking note of judgment of this Court in Shamim vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, Special Appeal No. 65 of 2017 decided on 01.05.2018 expeditiously preferably within a period of two weeks from today. Meanwhile, petitioner will not indulge in major financial activity except being urgent and Inquiry Officer appointed by impugned order is also directed to submit its report expeditiously. Petition stands disposed of with above observations."

4. After the order dated 30.01.2023 seizing financial and administrative powers of the appellant was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the District Magistrate, Etah, although, the proceedings were resumed but no fresh order was passed seizing administrative and financial powers of the appellant during course of the enquiry. Ultimately, on 05.07.2024, upon conclusion of the enquiry, the District Magistrate, Etah passed order dated

05.07.2024 and issued certain directions but did not order removal of the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the writ - petitioner (respondent herein) filed Writ-C No. 37260 of 2024. Learned Single Judge by interim order dated 21.01.2025 has stayed the operation of the order of District Magistrate, Etah dated

05.07.2024 and has further directed that the financial and administrative powers of the appellant shall remain suspended. It is further provided that the appellant shall not be permitted to exercise these powers except with the leave of the Court. The writ Court in passing the said order took notice of the fact that according to the findings returned in the order of District Magistrate, Etah the Secretary of Gram Panchayat and Pradhan (appellant) have resorted to forgery of certain resolution and also financial irregularities.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the impugned order has flavour of a final order and therefore the instant intra-court appeal is maintainable. It is submitted that at the time of passing of order dated 05.07.2024 by District Magistrate, Etah the appellant was duly discharging her functions as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat in view of the fact that there was no fresh order seizing her financial and administrative powers except for the condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 in Writ-C No. 6504 of 2023. The validity of the order of District Magistrate, Etah declining to remove the appellant from the post of Pradhan is still to be tested in the writ petition and in such circumstances, there was no occasion to order seizure of financial and administrative powers of the appellant as an interim measure without hearing the appellant and that too, on a petition filed by complainant. He further submits that in the impugned order there is no definite finding that the signature of any person was forged but the finding returned is only a tentative finding that the signature appears to be forged. He further submits that the resolution in respect of which one out of 15 members alleged that his signature had been forged, was only for constituting committees to monitor various functions of the Gram Panchayat and the said resolution was not passed against any person nor any decision was taken regarding expenditure etc. He further submits that in respect of alleged financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 63,000/- and odd the appellant did not challenge the order, as the final order was in her favour. This does not mean that the said finding is acceptable to the appellant and when the order of District Magistrate, Etah is subjected to challenge before learned Single Judge, the appellant has every right to dispute the correctness of the findings in the said order. As such, even otherwise, learned Single Judge was not justified in directing for cessation of financial and administrative powers. It is also urged that the power of seizure of administrative and financial power, should be left for being exercised by the Statutory Authority.

6. Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant (respondent herein) submits that in view of the findings recorded in the order dated 05.07.2024 regarding forgery and financial irregularities the District Magistrate, Etah was not justified in dropping the proceedings. He further submits that the matter was relegated to the District Magistrate, Etah in course of proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act and in such circumstances, there was no occasion to pass order under Section 27 of the Act.

7. Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, after brief submissions, fairly concedes that there was no order operating against the appellant seizing financial and administrative powers at the time of passing of the impugned order dated

05.07.2024. He also does not dispute that as a result of interim direction issued by the writ Court the status-quo, as was in existence since 03.03.2023, has been disturbed. He submits that he has no objection in case, the said part of the impugned order is set aside subject to imposition of same conditions, as were put up on the exercise of power by the appellant vide order dated

03.03.2023 in Writ-C No. 6504 of 2023. He also submits that the writ Court may be directed to decide the writ proceedings expeditiously and to which Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has no objection.

8. Undoubtedly, cessation of financial and administrative power of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, who is head of localself government, is an extreme step and can only be resorted to after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the person concerned.

9. Having regard to the said legal position and the submissions made and the fact that at the time of passing of order dated

05.07.2024 there was no order in operation seizing financial and administrative powers of the appellant and as agreed to by counsel for the writ-petitioner (respondent), we set aside the portion of the order by which it has been directed that the financial and administrative power of the appellant would stand ceased and will not be restored without leave of the Court. However, the appellant will not take any major financial activity except any urgent one, as was the condition imposed upon her vide order dated 03.03.2023 in the previous writ petition, until decision of the writ petition.

10. The appellant will have two weeks from today to file counter affidavit. The complainant will have a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. The writ petition shall be listed before learned Single Judge for disposal immediately after three weeks.

11. The appellant will not seek any unnecessary adjournment, as undertaken on her behalf by learned Senior Counsel.

12. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 17.2.2025

passed in Writ-C No. 37260 of 2024 filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Etah in proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

3. The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner filed certain complaint against the Pradhan (appellant herein) and in pursuance whereof an inquiry was instituted against the appellant and the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. An order dated 30.01.2023 was passed by the District Magistrate, Etah seizing the administrative and financial powers of the Gram Pradhan and appointing a three members committee to enquire into the complaint. The order was subjected to challenge by the appellant herein by filing Writ-C No. 6504 of 2023. The writ petition was allowed by order dated

03.03.2023 on the ground that order dated 30.01.2023 was a cryptic order. The operative part of the order of writ Court dated

03.03.2023 is as follows:- "Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.01.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Etah (respondent No.2) is hereby set aside qua to suspension of administrative and financial powers as well as appointment of three members committee and matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order taking note of judgment of this Court in Shamim vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, Special Appeal No. 65 of 2017 decided on 01.05.2018 expeditiously preferably within a period of two weeks from today. Meanwhile, petitioner will not indulge in major financial activity except being urgent and Inquiry Officer appointed by impugned order is also directed to submit its report expeditiously. Petition stands disposed of with above observations."

4. After the order dated 30.01.2023 seizing financial and administrative powers of the appellant was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the District Magistrate, Etah, although, the proceedings were resumed but no fresh order was passed seizing administrative and financial powers of the appellant during course of the enquiry. Ultimately, on 05.07.2024, upon conclusion of the enquiry, the District Magistrate, Etah passed order dated

05.07.2024 and issued certain directions but did not order removal of the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the writ - petitioner (respondent herein) filed Writ-C No. 37260 of 2024. Learned Single Judge by interim order dated 21.01.2025 has stayed the operation of the order of District Magistrate, Etah dated

05.07.2024 and has further directed that the financial and administrative powers of the appellant shall remain suspended. It is further provided that the appellant shall not be permitted to exercise these powers except with the leave of the Court. The writ Court in passing the said order took notice of the fact that according to the findings returned in the order of District Magistrate, Etah the Secretary of Gram Panchayat and Pradhan (appellant) have resorted to forgery of certain resolution and also financial irregularities.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the impugned order has flavour of a final order and therefore the instant intra-court appeal is maintainable. It is submitted that at the time of passing of order dated 05.07.2024 by District Magistrate, Etah the appellant was duly discharging her functions as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat in view of the fact that there was no fresh order seizing her financial and administrative powers except for the condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 in Writ-C No. 6504 of 2023. The validity of the order of District Magistrate, Etah declining to remove the appellant from the post of Pradhan is still to be tested in the writ petition and in such circumstances, there was no occasion to order seizure of financial and administrative powers of the appellant as an interim measure without hearing the appellant and that too, on a petition filed by complainant. He further submits that in the impugned order there is no definite finding that the signature of any person was forged but the finding returned is only a tentative finding that the signature appears to be forged. He further submits that the resolution in respect of which one out of 15 members alleged that his signature had been forged, was only for constituting committees to monitor various functions of the Gram Panchayat and the said resolution was not passed against any person nor any decision was taken regarding expenditure etc. He further submits that in respect of alleged financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 63,000/- and odd the appellant did not challenge the order, as the final order was in her favour. This does not mean that the said finding is acceptable to the appellant and when the order of District Magistrate, Etah is subjected to challenge before learned Single Judge, the appellant has every right to dispute the correctness of the findings in the said order. As such, even otherwise, learned Single Judge was not justified in directing for cessation of financial and administrative powers. It is also urged that the power of seizure of administrative and financial power, should be left for being exercised by the Statutory Authority.

6. Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant (respondent herein) submits that in view of the findings recorded in the order dated 05.07.2024 regarding forgery and financial irregularities the District Magistrate, Etah was not justified in dropping the proceedings. He further submits that the matter was relegated to the District Magistrate, Etah in course of proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act and in such circumstances, there was no occasion to pass order under Section 27 of the Act.

7. Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, after brief submissions, fairly concedes that there was no order operating against the appellant seizing financial and administrative powers at the time of passing of the impugned order dated

05.07.2024. He also does not dispute that as a result of interim direction issued by the writ Court the status-quo, as was in existence since 03.03.2023, has been disturbed. He submits that he has no objection in case, the said part of the impugned order is set aside subject to imposition of same conditions, as were put up on the exercise of power by the appellant vide order dated

03.03.2023 in Writ-C No. 6504 of 2023. He also submits that the writ Court may be directed to decide the writ proceedings expeditiously and to which Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has no objection.

8. Undoubtedly, cessation of financial and administrative power of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, who is head of localself government, is an extreme step and can only be resorted to after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the person concerned.

9. Having regard to the said legal position and the submissions made and the fact that at the time of passing of order dated

05.07.2024 there was no order in operation seizing financial and administrative powers of the appellant and as agreed to by counsel for the writ-petitioner (respondent), we set aside the portion of the order by which it has been directed that the financial and administrative power of the appellant would stand ceased and will not be restored without leave of the Court. However, the appellant will not take any major financial activity except any urgent one, as was the condition imposed upon her vide order dated 03.03.2023 in the previous writ petition, until decision of the writ petition.

10. The appellant will have two weeks from today to file counter affidavit. The complainant will have a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. The writ petition shall be listed before learned Single Judge for disposal immediately after three weeks.

11. The appellant will not seek any unnecessary adjournment, as undertaken on her behalf by learned Senior Counsel.

12. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 17.2.2025