Shyam Karan vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3247 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36450 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Shyam Karan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- J.P. Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Urai, respondent No. 2, in terms of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3994 of 2004, Shyam Karan Versus State of U.P. and others dated 20.1.2012.

The case of the petitioner is that the elected Pradhan was convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to life imprisonment and thereupon the competent authority in exercise of powers under Section 12 J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947, nominated the petitioner to look after the functions of the Pradhan by order dated 5.8.2011. It was also made clear that this arrangement was purely temporary and could be cancelled at any time without notice.

From a perusal of the documents on record, it will be seen that the order dated 5.2.2011 was purely in exercise of powers under Section 12J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947. In the mean time, a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 59838 of 2011 (Mansha Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed wherein, the Court by its order dated 28.11.2011 directed the District Magistrate would require to obtain the will of the remaining members of the Gram Panchayat for the purposes of appointment of temporary Gram Pradhan for the period the elected Pradhan is confined in prison.

From the impugned order, it is seen that in compliance of the directions of this Court, in the case of Mansha Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, the meeting of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat was held on 3.12.2011, in which Smt. Kamleshi, respondent No. 4 was elected as Pradhan.

The contention of the petitioner is that he was nominated as Pradhan by the competent authority vide order dated 5.8.2011 and there was no complaint against him and therefore, he had a right to continue to discharge the functions of Pradhan.

This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and fallacious. The arrangement made in terms of the order dated 5.8.2011 nominating the petitioner as Pradhan was purely a temporary arrangement, strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 12 J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947 and after the meeting held on 3.12.2011, Smt. Kamleshi was elected as pradhan. The petitioner had no right to insist on continuing on the post of Pradhan. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.7.2012

Arun K. Singh