Raghvendra Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj

Srivastava Court No. - 19 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State – respondents and perused the record. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the Opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2025 and 19.10.2025 within the period of stipulated time, in accordance with law, contained as Annexure No.1. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite party no.2 to initiated proceeding against the opposite party no.8 i.e. Smt. Mamta Shukla, presently holding the post of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Deeh, District Sultanpur under Section 95 1 (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite party no.2, i.e. District Magistrate, Sultanpur to donduct detail financial audit and enquiry in regard to the connecting of unauthorized mobile no. and e-mal I.D. of opposite party no. 9, i.e., Shri Gokaran Prasad Shukla with the Gram Panchayat bank account, and to recover any illegal payments in this respect, in accordance with law. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite party no.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, District Sultanpur to register FIR against opposite party no.9 for impersonating a public official and violating the Flag Code of India, 2002. 2 WRIC No. 11136 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.8 Smt. Mamta Shukla is Gram Pradhan but all the matters pertaining to Gram Panchayat are being dealt with by her brother in law one Gokaran Prasad Shukla, respondent no.9 who himself poses as Gram Pradhan. The petitioner has filed a detailed complaint on IGRS and a copy thereof has been filed Annexure -1 at page 19 of paper book. Respondent no.9 has linked his mobile number and e – mail ID with the Gram Panchayat Account and illegal payments are being made. A number of irregularities are committed in the name of Gram Pradhan and the funds of MNREGA and other Government welfare schemes are being illegally dealt with. Payments are being made by respondent no.9 with connivance of Gram Pradhan Mamta Shukla, therefore, high level inquiry is required in the matter and all the payments made since 2016 are to be subjected independent audit and any illegal payment made should be recovered from the guilty person and if the Gram Pradhan Smt. Mamta Shukla is found negligent in performance of her duties, the necessary action should be taken against her under Section 95 (1) (g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the State - respondents submits that previously financial and administrative powers of the said Gram Pradhan were suspended on the complaint of some other person. Respondent no.8 filed writ petition as Writ C No.6791/2025 before this Court which was decided in her favour on 18.7.2025 and she was permitted to discharge her duties as Gram Pradhan including financial and administrative power which shall be restored forthwith. It is also observed in the said order that any complaint by persons who are related to present complainant shall not be proceeded with unless something concrete is found against the petitioner. It is next submitted that as per instructions received by learned State counsel that instead of filing a complaint in accordance with procedure provided under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997, the petitioner has filed petition before this Court to settle the provisions of the Rules made for the purpose which procedure provides for conducting Preliminary Enquiry and final enquiry in respect of Gram Pradhan. He also submitted that so far as encroachment is concerned the proceedings are being conducted against guilty persons. Case No.719/2025 under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code has been instituted and proceedings are being carried out and action is being carried out. He submits that under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules it is provided as under :- 3 WRIC No. 11136 of 2025 “3. Procedure relating to complaints. – (1) Any person making a complaint against a Pradhan or Up Pradhan may send his complaint to the State Government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government – (2) Every complaint referred to in sub- rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant’s own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to the accusation. (3) Every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code or Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings and affidavits, respectively. (4) Not less than three copies of the complaint as well as of each of its annexure shall be submitted by the complainant. (5) A complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this rules shall not be entertained. (6) It shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the foregoing provisions of this rule if a complaints against a Pradhan or Up Pradhan is made by a public servant.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer at this stage towards prayer no.1 in which it is prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus be issued against respondents to decide representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2025 within stipulated time. The writ petition is liable to be disposed of with certain directions. It is directed that petitioner shall file a representation before the competent authority as provided under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules as stated above before the Competent officer empowered by the State Government in that behalf complying with the provisions of Sub Rule 2 to 4 within six weeks and same will be dealt with in accordance with law by the competent authority within two months of representation along with certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. November 19, 2025 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Srivastava Court No. - 19 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State – respondents and perused the record. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the Opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2025 and 19.10.2025 within the period of stipulated time, in accordance with law, contained as Annexure No.1. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite party no.2 to initiated proceeding against the opposite party no.8 i.e. Smt. Mamta Shukla, presently holding the post of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Deeh, District Sultanpur under Section 95 1 (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite party no.2, i.e. District Magistrate, Sultanpur to donduct detail financial audit and enquiry in regard to the connecting of unauthorized mobile no. and e-mal I.D. of opposite party no. 9, i.e., Shri Gokaran Prasad Shukla with the Gram Panchayat bank account, and to recover any illegal payments in this respect, in accordance with law. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite party no.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, District Sultanpur to register FIR against opposite party no.9 for impersonating a public official and violating the Flag Code of India, 2002. 2 WRIC No. 11136 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.8 Smt. Mamta Shukla is Gram Pradhan but all the matters pertaining to Gram Panchayat are being dealt with by her brother in law one Gokaran Prasad Shukla, respondent no.9 who himself poses as Gram Pradhan. The petitioner has filed a detailed complaint on IGRS and a copy thereof has been filed Annexure -1 at page 19 of paper book. Respondent no.9 has linked his mobile number and e – mail ID with the Gram Panchayat Account and illegal payments are being made. A number of irregularities are committed in the name of Gram Pradhan and the funds of MNREGA and other Government welfare schemes are being illegally dealt with. Payments are being made by respondent no.9 with connivance of Gram Pradhan Mamta Shukla, therefore, high level inquiry is required in the matter and all the payments made since 2016 are to be subjected independent audit and any illegal payment made should be recovered from the guilty person and if the Gram Pradhan Smt. Mamta Shukla is found negligent in performance of her duties, the necessary action should be taken against her under Section 95 (1) (g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the State - respondents submits that previously financial and administrative powers of the said Gram Pradhan were suspended on the complaint of some other person. Respondent no.8 filed writ petition as Writ C No.6791/2025 before this Court which was decided in her favour on 18.7.2025 and she was permitted to discharge her duties as Gram Pradhan including financial and administrative power which shall be restored forthwith. It is also observed in the said order that any complaint by persons who are related to present complainant shall not be proceeded with unless something concrete is found against the petitioner. It is next submitted that as per instructions received by learned State counsel that instead of filing a complaint in accordance with procedure provided under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997, the petitioner has filed petition before this Court to settle the provisions of the Rules made for the purpose which procedure provides for conducting Preliminary Enquiry and final enquiry in respect of Gram Pradhan. He also submitted that so far as encroachment is concerned the proceedings are being conducted against guilty persons. Case No.719/2025 under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code has been instituted and proceedings are being carried out and action is being carried out. He submits that under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules it is provided as under :- 3 WRIC No. 11136 of 2025 “3. Procedure relating to complaints. – (1) Any person making a complaint against a Pradhan or Up Pradhan may send his complaint to the State Government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government – (2) Every complaint referred to in sub- rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant’s own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to the accusation. (3) Every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code or Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings and affidavits, respectively. (4) Not less than three copies of the complaint as well as of each of its annexure shall be submitted by the complainant. (5) A complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this rules shall not be entertained. (6) It shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the foregoing provisions of this rule if a complaints against a Pradhan or Up Pradhan is made by a public servant.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer at this stage towards prayer no.1 in which it is prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus be issued against respondents to decide representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2025 within stipulated time. The writ petition is liable to be disposed of with certain directions. It is directed that petitioner shall file a representation before the competent authority as provided under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules as stated above before the Competent officer empowered by the State Government in that behalf complying with the provisions of Sub Rule 2 to 4 within six weeks and same will be dealt with in accordance with law by the competent authority within two months of representation along with certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. November 19, 2025 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench