High Court · 2025

has preferred Writ Petition No.3166 of 2023 (Smt. Sukhdevi Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 21.02.2023 directing the District Magistrate, Budaun to take a final decision in the matter. Subsequent to the same, final decision has been taken by the District Magistrate, Budaun on 02.05.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order is not as per direction given by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph Nos.28 & 29 of the writ petition which reads as follows:-

28. That in the order dated 02.05.2025 District Magistrate, Budaun said that respecting the order of the High Court Civil Misc. Writ Petition, Writ C 3166 of 2023 Smt. Sukhdevi Vs State of U.P. and others order dated 21.02.2023 the financial and Administrative powers of the village Pradhan were restored whereas doing so is wrong because nothing like this is written in the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

29. That the order of the District Magistrate, Budaun dated 02.05.2025 is absolutely wrong because there is no such law/Section in the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, that after investigation of the Gram Pradhan of any Gram Panchayat, corruption is found after confirmation of corruption, he should be brought back to the post of Gram Pradhan of the Gram Pancyayat. There is no such law/Section in U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The District Magistrate, has misused his authority.

4. Apart from the same, it is argued that order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun/respondent No.2 is against the provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that after taking into consideration of all aspect of the matter, the decision has been taken by the respondent No.2 and the same does not call for any interference by this Court under the writ jurisdiction.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.

7. Insofar as the first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner,i.e., the order impugned has been passed in violation of the direction given by this Court in Writ C No.3166 of 2023 vide order dated 21.02.2023 is concerned, the order dated

21.02.2023 reads as follows:- Bharat Singh, learned counsel for petitioner after arguing for sometime on instructions submits that this writ petition be disposed of with direction that inquiry initiated against petitioner under provisions of 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 be concluded expeditiously. Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and Sri U.K.Goswami, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8 undertakes that they will co-operate with inquiry. Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that inquiry initiated against petitioner will be concluded expeditiously. Considering above submissions and also taking note of undertaking given by learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 8, this writ petition is disposed of with direction, that inquiry initiated against petitioner shall be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of period of two months from today in accordance with law.

8. From perusal of the same, it is clear that in the aforesaid order, only direction was given is to conclude the inquiry expeditiously and nothing has been stated on merits of the case. Insofar as the second ground taken by the petitioner as stated in paragraph 29 of the petition is concerned, The Court is of the opinion that it is settled law that order of suspension of Gram Pradhan was passed only on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report and in case, it is found after final inquiry conducted by the authorities that no irregularity or illegality has been found for removal of Pradhan, then the District Magistrate has the power to restore the power of the Gram Pradhan. From perusal of the swearing clause of the affidavit, it is found that the aforesaid paragraph has been sworn on the basis of record but nothing has been brought on record.

9. Insofar as the argument that the order impugned has been passed in violation of provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution of India, nothing has been brought on record that which provision of the Article 243 of the Constitution of India is violated.

10. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition nor any arguments have been made what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with the order impugned.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed reported in 1976 (1) SCC 671 held that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot maintain a Writ for either Certiorari or Mandamus. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not interfere at the instance of a "stranger" unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a "stranger", and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject "reasonable restrictions imposed by law"."

12. The same view was again taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Eswari vs. Chief Secretary of Government of Tamilnadu and others in Writ Petition No.27298 of 2021 decided on 25.1.2023.

13. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025/saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

has preferred Writ Petition No.3166 of 2023 (Smt. Sukhdevi Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 21.02.2023 directing the District Magistrate, Budaun to take a final decision in the matter. Subsequent to the same, final decision has been taken by the District Magistrate, Budaun on 02.05.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order is not as per direction given by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph Nos.28 & 29 of the writ petition which reads as follows:-

28. That in the order dated 02.05.2025 District Magistrate, Budaun said that respecting the order of the High Court Civil Misc. Writ Petition, Writ C 3166 of 2023 Smt. Sukhdevi Vs State of U.P. and others order dated 21.02.2023 the financial and Administrative powers of the village Pradhan were restored whereas doing so is wrong because nothing like this is written in the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

29. That the order of the District Magistrate, Budaun dated 02.05.2025 is absolutely wrong because there is no such law/Section in the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, that after investigation of the Gram Pradhan of any Gram Panchayat, corruption is found after confirmation of corruption, he should be brought back to the post of Gram Pradhan of the Gram Pancyayat. There is no such law/Section in U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The District Magistrate, has misused his authority.

4. Apart from the same, it is argued that order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun/respondent No.2 is against the provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that after taking into consideration of all aspect of the matter, the decision has been taken by the respondent No.2 and the same does not call for any interference by this Court under the writ jurisdiction.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.

7. Insofar as the first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner,i.e., the order impugned has been passed in violation of the direction given by this Court in Writ C No.3166 of 2023 vide order dated 21.02.2023 is concerned, the order dated

21.02.2023 reads as follows:- Bharat Singh, learned counsel for petitioner after arguing for sometime on instructions submits that this writ petition be disposed of with direction that inquiry initiated against petitioner under provisions of 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 be concluded expeditiously. Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and Sri U.K.Goswami, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8 undertakes that they will co-operate with inquiry. Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that inquiry initiated against petitioner will be concluded expeditiously. Considering above submissions and also taking note of undertaking given by learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 8, this writ petition is disposed of with direction, that inquiry initiated against petitioner shall be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of period of two months from today in accordance with law.

8. From perusal of the same, it is clear that in the aforesaid order, only direction was given is to conclude the inquiry expeditiously and nothing has been stated on merits of the case. Insofar as the second ground taken by the petitioner as stated in paragraph 29 of the petition is concerned, The Court is of the opinion that it is settled law that order of suspension of Gram Pradhan was passed only on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report and in case, it is found after final inquiry conducted by the authorities that no irregularity or illegality has been found for removal of Pradhan, then the District Magistrate has the power to restore the power of the Gram Pradhan. From perusal of the swearing clause of the affidavit, it is found that the aforesaid paragraph has been sworn on the basis of record but nothing has been brought on record.

9. Insofar as the argument that the order impugned has been passed in violation of provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution of India, nothing has been brought on record that which provision of the Article 243 of the Constitution of India is violated.

10. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition nor any arguments have been made what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with the order impugned.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed reported in 1976 (1) SCC 671 held that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot maintain a Writ for either Certiorari or Mandamus. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not interfere at the instance of a "stranger" unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a "stranger", and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject "reasonable restrictions imposed by law"."

12. The same view was again taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Eswari vs. Chief Secretary of Government of Tamilnadu and others in Writ Petition No.27298 of 2021 decided on 25.1.2023.

13. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025/saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad