Smt. Sheela vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchyati

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri U.C. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur appointing the opposite party no.11 Ms. Aradhana Maurya to act as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Sultanpur till a regular Gram Pradhan is elected.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Geeta Devi was holding the post of Gram Pradhan. She died on 16.5.2025 and thereafter the District Magistrate appointed the petitioner to perform the duties of Gram Pradhan under Section 12 J of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

4. Six persons challenged the petitioner's appointment as Gram Pradhan under Section 12 J of the Act by filing Writ C No. 7630 of 2025 (Kamlesh Kumar Maurya alias Umendra Kumar Maurya and Others) which was disposed of by means of order dated 07.8.2025 passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ C 2 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 No.7630 of 2025 was that the appointment had been made without taking wishes of other members into account as laid down in the cases of Shyamu vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 SCC online Allahabad 1250 and Shyam Rang vs. State of U.P. Writ C No.10901 of 2023 decided on 22.12.2023.

6. Learned Standing Counsel had stated on the basis of instructions that views of other members had not been taken prior to appointing the petitioner as the village Pradhan.

7. Following the aforesaid two judgments this Court set aside the order dated 26.6.2025 appointing the petitioner as Gram Pradhan and directing the District Panchayat Raj Officer to take steps for appointment of Gram Pradhan afresh in light of directions given in the aforesaid two judgment.

8. After passing of the aforesaid order, a meeting of village Panchayat was held for taking views of Panchayat members regarding appointment of village Pradhan. 7 members voted in favour of the opposite party no.11 and 3 members voted in favour of the petitioner.

9. Thereafter, the District Panchayat Raj Officer passed the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 appointing the opposite party no.11 to perform the duties of village Pradhan till election of a regular Gram Pradhan.

10. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Panchayat Raj Officer has passed the impugned order without application of his mind and without assigning any reason for appointment of opposite party no.11. He has submitted that in Shyamu (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :- "16. The question is whether such opinion given by the elected members would be binding on the Prescribed Authority. If such an interpretation is given, then the power exercised by the Prescribed Authority under Section 12- J of the Act will have to be read subject to the opinion of other members. This would not be a correct interpretation of the law. There could be a possibility of violation of 3 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 reservation policy, and/ or the like. Directing the Prescribed Authority to accept the view of the members after the process of consultation, as to who should be the Pradhan of the village, to an extent, will be against observation in the latter part of the paragraph, which we have reproduced separately, which practically holds that the view given by the elected members would be binding on the District Magistrate, would not be a proper interpretation of Section 12-J of the Act and to that extent may have to be further explained. Considering the Division bench Judgement in Udaivir (supra), the Prescribed Authority, at the highest, should note the opinion of the members and thereafter help the Prescribed Authority to know who enjoys the confidence of the overwhelming number of members prefer a candidate, the Prescribed Authority should ordinarily, in the exercise of his powers to nominate, take that opinion into consideration if otherwise the name proposed would not be against any policy. This, in our opinion, would be a proper interpretation of Section 12- J, which would not denude the power of the Prescribed Authority under the Section."

11. Per contra, Shri U.C. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that Section 12 J empowers the Prescribed Authority to nominate a member of Gram Panchayat to discharge the duties and exercise the powers of Pradhan until such vacancy in the office of Gram Pradhan is filled in.

12. In Udaivir vs. State Election Commission of U.P. reported in 2008 SCC online Allahabad 2132, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :- "4. Considering the basic concept of the democracy set up for the Panchayat Raj under the provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution, we are of the opinion that respondent no.3, i.e., District Magistrate, Aligarh ought to have ascertained the wishes of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat, as to who should be the officiating Pradhan for the period till the regular election of the Gram Pradhan is held."

13. In Usha Singh vs. District Magistrate Gorakhpur and Others reported in 1992 (R D) 337 a single bench of this Court held that:- "7. A perusal of Section 12 – J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act shows that if the office of Pradhan becomes vacant then the Up-Pradhan would 4 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 exercise the function of Pradhan. Sub- section (2) of Section 12- J of the Act states that if the offices of both Pradhan and UP- Pradhan are vacant, or if for any reason both Pradhan and Up Pradhan are incapable to act, the Prescribed Authority shall nominate a member of the Gaon Panchayat to discharge the functions of the Pradhan until the office of Pradhan or Up Pradhan is filled up. Sub – section (2) of Section 12- J of the Act states that if the offices of both Pradhan and Up- Pradhan are vacant, or if for any reason both the Pradhan and Up Pradhan are incapable to act, the Prescribed Authority shall nominate a member of the Gaon Panchayat to discharge the functions of the Pradhan until the office of Pradhan or Up Pradhan is filled up. Sub section (2) does not state which member of the Gaon Panchayat should be nominated by the Prescribed Authority to discharge the functions of the Pradhan. Literally construed the said provision gives absolute discretion to, the Prescribed Authority to nominate any member of the Gaon Panchayat for this purpose. Such an interpretation, however, would make the provision arbitrary, and in favour of which member of the Gaon Panchayat. However, it is a settled principle of interpretation that the courts should as far as possible try to avoid holding a statute to be unconstitutional, and interpretation should be accepted. In my opinion, since the Gaon Sabha and Gaon panchayat are democratic bodies elected by the people, the proper interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 12 – J would be that in case where the offices of both Pradhan and Up Pradhan are vacant, or when both Pradhan and Up Pradhan are incapable to act, the Prescribed Authority should ask the members of the Gaon Panchayat to hold a meeting, and such members should decide among themselves which member should be nominated as Pradhan for the interim period until regular election, and such member should be nominated as officiating Pradhan under Section 12 – J (2). Such an interpretation would be in consonance with the democratic principle underlying the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and would also make the statue constitutional."

14. In Shyamu (supra), this Court has also observed as follows :- "15. The office of Pradhan of a village is filled in by elections. The legislature, aware of this position, has made a specific provision under the Act, conferring powers on the Prescribed Authority to 5 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 nominate a member to discharge the duties and exercise the powers of Pradhan until the vacancy of the office of Pradhan is filled in. This exercise is for the purpose of seeing that the functions of the Panchayat proceed smoothly and that there is no vacancy in the post till the vacancy is filled, as the panchayat constitutes the basic unit of our democratic structure. To that extent, the observations made by the learned Division Bench in Udaivir (supra), in our opinion, can be said to reflect this basic concept of our democratic body that those in majority, shall have their nominee elected as an elected Pradhan should have the confidence of the members."

16. What comes out from a collective reading of the statutory mandate contained in Section 12 J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and judgments referred above is that the Prescribed Authority has power to nominate a person to perform the duties of village Pradhan in case of casual vacancy after taking into consideration the views of majority of members.

17. Earlier, the petitioner had been appointed to perform the duties of village Pradhan without taking the views of majority of members of the village panchayat and the petitioner's appointment had been set aside by this Court on this ground alone and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for taking a decision afresh after taking into the views of the majority of the members.

18. A meeting of members of village panchayat was held in compliance of the order dated 07.8.2025 passed by this Court in which 7 members have voted in favour of the opposite party no.11 whereas 3 members have voted in favour of the petitioner.

19. Thus, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the petitioner.

20. This Court has categorically held in Shyamu (supra) that if an overwhelming number of members prefer a candidate, the prescribed authority should ordinarily take the opinion of the majority into consideration while making nomination.

21. The Prescribed Authority has precisely done this through the 6 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 impugned order.

22. The word 'Ordinarily' signifies that normally the prescribed authority shall respect the wishes of majority as the Panchayat constitutes the basic unit of our democratic structure and in democracy, views of the majority have to be respected.

23. The use of the word 'ordinarily' also signifies that in case there are some exceptional circumstances, the Prescribed Authority may take a reasoned decision against the wishes of the majority but neither any such exceptional circumstances were brought to the notice of the Prescribed Authority nor have the same been pleaded in the petition filed before this Court. In absence of any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances being in existence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority accepting the wishes of the majority while making appointment of the opposite party no.11 to perform the duties of Pradhan till election of a regular Pradhan, does not suffer from any error or illegality.

24. Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. November 27, 2025 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri U.C. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur appointing the opposite party no.11 Ms. Aradhana Maurya to act as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Sultanpur till a regular Gram Pradhan is elected.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Geeta Devi was holding the post of Gram Pradhan. She died on 16.5.2025 and thereafter the District Magistrate appointed the petitioner to perform the duties of Gram Pradhan under Section 12 J of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

4. Six persons challenged the petitioner's appointment as Gram Pradhan under Section 12 J of the Act by filing Writ C No. 7630 of 2025 (Kamlesh Kumar Maurya alias Umendra Kumar Maurya and Others) which was disposed of by means of order dated 07.8.2025 passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ C 2 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 No.7630 of 2025 was that the appointment had been made without taking wishes of other members into account as laid down in the cases of Shyamu vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 SCC online Allahabad 1250 and Shyam Rang vs. State of U.P. Writ C No.10901 of 2023 decided on 22.12.2023.

6. Learned Standing Counsel had stated on the basis of instructions that views of other members had not been taken prior to appointing the petitioner as the village Pradhan.

7. Following the aforesaid two judgments this Court set aside the order dated 26.6.2025 appointing the petitioner as Gram Pradhan and directing the District Panchayat Raj Officer to take steps for appointment of Gram Pradhan afresh in light of directions given in the aforesaid two judgment.

8. After passing of the aforesaid order, a meeting of village Panchayat was held for taking views of Panchayat members regarding appointment of village Pradhan. 7 members voted in favour of the opposite party no.11 and 3 members voted in favour of the petitioner.

9. Thereafter, the District Panchayat Raj Officer passed the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 appointing the opposite party no.11 to perform the duties of village Pradhan till election of a regular Gram Pradhan.

10. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Panchayat Raj Officer has passed the impugned order without application of his mind and without assigning any reason for appointment of opposite party no.11. He has submitted that in Shyamu (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :- "16. The question is whether such opinion given by the elected members would be binding on the Prescribed Authority. If such an interpretation is given, then the power exercised by the Prescribed Authority under Section 12- J of the Act will have to be read subject to the opinion of other members. This would not be a correct interpretation of the law. There could be a possibility of violation of 3 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 reservation policy, and/ or the like. Directing the Prescribed Authority to accept the view of the members after the process of consultation, as to who should be the Pradhan of the village, to an extent, will be against observation in the latter part of the paragraph, which we have reproduced separately, which practically holds that the view given by the elected members would be binding on the District Magistrate, would not be a proper interpretation of Section 12-J of the Act and to that extent may have to be further explained. Considering the Division bench Judgement in Udaivir (supra), the Prescribed Authority, at the highest, should note the opinion of the members and thereafter help the Prescribed Authority to know who enjoys the confidence of the overwhelming number of members prefer a candidate, the Prescribed Authority should ordinarily, in the exercise of his powers to nominate, take that opinion into consideration if otherwise the name proposed would not be against any policy. This, in our opinion, would be a proper interpretation of Section 12- J, which would not denude the power of the Prescribed Authority under the Section."

11. Per contra, Shri U.C. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that Section 12 J empowers the Prescribed Authority to nominate a member of Gram Panchayat to discharge the duties and exercise the powers of Pradhan until such vacancy in the office of Gram Pradhan is filled in.

12. In Udaivir vs. State Election Commission of U.P. reported in 2008 SCC online Allahabad 2132, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :- "4. Considering the basic concept of the democracy set up for the Panchayat Raj under the provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution, we are of the opinion that respondent no.3, i.e., District Magistrate, Aligarh ought to have ascertained the wishes of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat, as to who should be the officiating Pradhan for the period till the regular election of the Gram Pradhan is held."

13. In Usha Singh vs. District Magistrate Gorakhpur and Others reported in 1992 (R D) 337 a single bench of this Court held that:- "7. A perusal of Section 12 – J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act shows that if the office of Pradhan becomes vacant then the Up-Pradhan would 4 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 exercise the function of Pradhan. Sub- section (2) of Section 12- J of the Act states that if the offices of both Pradhan and UP- Pradhan are vacant, or if for any reason both Pradhan and Up Pradhan are incapable to act, the Prescribed Authority shall nominate a member of the Gaon Panchayat to discharge the functions of the Pradhan until the office of Pradhan or Up Pradhan is filled up. Sub – section (2) of Section 12- J of the Act states that if the offices of both Pradhan and Up- Pradhan are vacant, or if for any reason both the Pradhan and Up Pradhan are incapable to act, the Prescribed Authority shall nominate a member of the Gaon Panchayat to discharge the functions of the Pradhan until the office of Pradhan or Up Pradhan is filled up. Sub section (2) does not state which member of the Gaon Panchayat should be nominated by the Prescribed Authority to discharge the functions of the Pradhan. Literally construed the said provision gives absolute discretion to, the Prescribed Authority to nominate any member of the Gaon Panchayat for this purpose. Such an interpretation, however, would make the provision arbitrary, and in favour of which member of the Gaon Panchayat. However, it is a settled principle of interpretation that the courts should as far as possible try to avoid holding a statute to be unconstitutional, and interpretation should be accepted. In my opinion, since the Gaon Sabha and Gaon panchayat are democratic bodies elected by the people, the proper interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 12 – J would be that in case where the offices of both Pradhan and Up Pradhan are vacant, or when both Pradhan and Up Pradhan are incapable to act, the Prescribed Authority should ask the members of the Gaon Panchayat to hold a meeting, and such members should decide among themselves which member should be nominated as Pradhan for the interim period until regular election, and such member should be nominated as officiating Pradhan under Section 12 – J (2). Such an interpretation would be in consonance with the democratic principle underlying the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and would also make the statue constitutional."

14. In Shyamu (supra), this Court has also observed as follows :- "15. The office of Pradhan of a village is filled in by elections. The legislature, aware of this position, has made a specific provision under the Act, conferring powers on the Prescribed Authority to 5 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 nominate a member to discharge the duties and exercise the powers of Pradhan until the vacancy of the office of Pradhan is filled in. This exercise is for the purpose of seeing that the functions of the Panchayat proceed smoothly and that there is no vacancy in the post till the vacancy is filled, as the panchayat constitutes the basic unit of our democratic structure. To that extent, the observations made by the learned Division Bench in Udaivir (supra), in our opinion, can be said to reflect this basic concept of our democratic body that those in majority, shall have their nominee elected as an elected Pradhan should have the confidence of the members."

16. What comes out from a collective reading of the statutory mandate contained in Section 12 J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and judgments referred above is that the Prescribed Authority has power to nominate a person to perform the duties of village Pradhan in case of casual vacancy after taking into consideration the views of majority of members.

17. Earlier, the petitioner had been appointed to perform the duties of village Pradhan without taking the views of majority of members of the village panchayat and the petitioner's appointment had been set aside by this Court on this ground alone and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for taking a decision afresh after taking into the views of the majority of the members.

18. A meeting of members of village panchayat was held in compliance of the order dated 07.8.2025 passed by this Court in which 7 members have voted in favour of the opposite party no.11 whereas 3 members have voted in favour of the petitioner.

19. Thus, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the petitioner.

20. This Court has categorically held in Shyamu (supra) that if an overwhelming number of members prefer a candidate, the prescribed authority should ordinarily take the opinion of the majority into consideration while making nomination.

21. The Prescribed Authority has precisely done this through the 6 WRIC No. 11448 of 2025 impugned order.

22. The word 'Ordinarily' signifies that normally the prescribed authority shall respect the wishes of majority as the Panchayat constitutes the basic unit of our democratic structure and in democracy, views of the majority have to be respected.

23. The use of the word 'ordinarily' also signifies that in case there are some exceptional circumstances, the Prescribed Authority may take a reasoned decision against the wishes of the majority but neither any such exceptional circumstances were brought to the notice of the Prescribed Authority nor have the same been pleaded in the petition filed before this Court. In absence of any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances being in existence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority accepting the wishes of the majority while making appointment of the opposite party no.11 to perform the duties of Pradhan till election of a regular Pradhan, does not suffer from any error or illegality.

24. Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. November 27, 2025 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench