Smt. Suneeta Devi v. State Of U.P.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no
Provisions considered
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act s. 95(1)(g)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is Gram Pradhan and notice dated 17.3.2023 was issued to petitioner under Section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has submitted his reply…
Judgment
Petitioner :- Smt. Suneeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh, Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Mainpuri, namely, Sri Anjani Kumar Singh by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Facts in brief are that earlier order dated 30.10.2024 has been passed by the same authority i.e. respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Mainpuri, namely, Sri Anjani Kumar Singh. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Writ-C No. 36852 of 2024 (Smt. Suneeta Devi Versus State of U.P. and 2 others) has been filed in which following order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.12.2024. The aforesaid order is extracted below:- "1. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, at the very outset, has pointed out that on previous date i.e. on 29.11.2024, by error, it was argued that no show cause notice was issued to petitioner although as per writ petition, show cause notice has been issued and as such, he seeks liberty to withdraw the aforesaid argument.
2. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
Accordingly, the aforesaid argument of petitioner in respect to non service of show cause notice is permitted to be withdrawn.
Operative part
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is Gram Pradhan and notice dated 17.3.2023 was issued to petitioner under Section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has submitted his reply dated 20.4.2023 before the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, thereafter petitioner had filed Writ-C No.28042 of 2023 (Smt. Suneeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). On 29.8.2023, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of. The order dated 29.8.2023 is quoted herein below: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State - respondents. After hearing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the notice dated 17.03.2023, a detailed reply has already been submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 20.04.2023, which has been received in the Office of the respondent no. 2 on 21.04.2023, but the same has not been decided till date. He further submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent no. 2 for expeditious disposal of the reply of the petitioner. To the said prayer, learned standing counsel has no objection. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner's reply dated 20.04.2023, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. "
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that subsequently, by means of impugned order dated 30.10.2024, financial administrative powers of Gram Pradhan of petitioner has been seized by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri without considering reply of petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order dated 30.10.2024 does not refer to show cause notice dated 17.3.2023 and the reply submitted by petitioner nor the order dated 29.8.2023 of this Court has been complied with. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was imperative on the part of respondent authority to have passed impugned order in the light of order dated 29.8.2023 of this Court.
Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that in the impugned order, there is no consideration of reply submitted by petitioner.
The order dated 29.8.2023 of this Court was very clear that reply dated 20.4.2023 submitted by petitioner be decided. It was necessary for the District Magistrate to have considered the reply of petitioner even otherwise it requires that the reply submitted by petitioner is also considered while passing order of seizing financial administrative powers.
Prima facie, this Court is of the view that District Magistrate has violated the order dated 29.8.2023 passed by this Court.
Let District Magistrate, Mainpuri to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated for non compliance of order dated 29.8.2023 of this Court. The District Magistrate, Mainpuri shall file personal affidavit in this respect.
In view of the fact that order dated 29.8.2023 of this Court has not been complied with in the impugned order nor reply of petitioner has been considered, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 25.10.2024 and 30.10.2024 issued by respondent no.2 under Rule 5 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members), Enquiry Rules, 1997, shall remain stayed.
List this case on 23.1.2025.
Copy of this order be sent by learned Standing Counsel to District Magistrate, Mainpuri for submitting his reply within 20 days"
3. By the aforesaid order, the effect and operation of the order dated 25.10.2024 and 30.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 has been stayed.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing and without taking leave of this Court again the same authority i.e. respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Mainpuri, namely, Sri Anjani Kumar Singh passed the order by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized.
5. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, is liable to be withdrawn by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, he will withdraw the same very soon.
6. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri Vijay Shanker Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
7. While going through the same, this Court was very much shocked and surprised that in what manner, the order dated 19.05.2025 was passed by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri.
8. It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid, the respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Mainpuri have full knowledge of the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2024 by which the earlier orders passed by him by which financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized, was stayed by this Court, in spite of the same, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the petitioner and without taking leave of this Court to pass fresh order, again order impugned has been passed by which financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized.
9. This Court is more than satisfied that the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri is not only per se illegal but also complete violation of the order passed by this Court dated 18.12.2024.
10. Time till 04.07.2025 is granted to Sri Ashok Mehra, learned Additional Advocate General to seek instructions in the matter.
11. Put up as fresh on 04.07.2025.
12. On the said date, respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Mainpuri shall remain present before this Court along with his explanation.
Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 19.05.2025 shall remain stayed. A mandamus is also issued to District Magistrate, Mainpuri not to interfere in the functioning the petitioner. However, it is made clear that passing of this order will not restrain the respondent no.2 to pass fresh order, if so advise. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 T.S.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act — s. 95(1)(g).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 30 May 2025. The bench was PRAKASH PADIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.