Jamal Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 326 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- P.I.L. CIVIL No. - 10165 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Jamal Khan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma,Jitendra Prakash Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Nath Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Nisha Tiwari holding brief of Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

From the allegations against the respondent No.6 as well as the Village Development Officer contending that the respondent No.6, while he was Gaon Pradhan, has misappropriated and defalcated funds of the Gram Sabha. The discrepancy was inquired into and the payments made were not found to be genuine vide notice dated 28.9.2012, copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition.

The petitioner contends that he had been continuously pursuing the matter but vide letter dated 19.2.2016, the petitioner was informed that since the respondent No.6 has already ceased to be a Gram Pradhan 5 years hence, therefore the proceeding under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 cannot be continued against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 27 clearly provides that the liability can only cease to exist after the expiry of ten years or 5 years from the date on which the person liable ceases to hold office, whichever is later. In this background, the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the District Panchayat Raj Officer vide order dated 19.2.2016 is incorrect and is not in accordance with the aforesaid proviso of Section 27. It is urged that the period of 10 years has not yet expired, and therefore the matter can be investigated and steps can be taken in this regard keeping in view the said report and the notice given to the respondent No.6 on 28.9.2012.

There is no challenge raised to the order dated 19.2.2016. However, in view of the stated position of law as contained in Section 27(1) of the 1947 Act referred to herein above the period of 10 years has not yet expired, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 along with a certified copy of this order who may proceed to examine the said issue and then, place the matter before the appropriate authority for consideration or passing of any order in accordance the law but not without putting the respondent No.6 and 7 to notice.

The Writ Petition is disposed off with the aforesaid observations.

Order Date :- 9.5.2017

arnima

[Sanjay Harkauli,J.][Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.]