Allahabad High Court
Narendra Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17636 of 2021
Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of the respondents authorities to take action against the respondent Pradhan in proceedings under Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner is a complainant and does not have a locus standi to institute this writ petition. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 31809 of 2015 (Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 4 others) and in Writ-C No. 55108 of 2013 (Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 others).
The learned Division Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Dharam Raj Vs State of U.P. and others reported at 2009 (108) RD 689 held as under:
"It is settled law that the complainant has no locus standi to challenge the orders and he is not an aggrieved person. In this regard a reference be made to the judgment given by this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in [2009 (108) RD 689] and also the judgment given in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 275 of 2015 (Kapoori Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"There is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal, which has been explained.
The Court is satisfied with the explanation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is being heard on merit.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.2.2015 passed in Writ-C No. 54372 of 2014.
It appears that the appellant had made certain allegations against the Gram Pradhan under Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, which provides that the proceedings may be initiated upon a complaint and filing of an affidavit by a complainant is mandatory.
The role of the complainant ends with the filing of a proper complaint as contemplated under sub rules (2) and (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1997.
The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition observing that the complainant has no locus to file petition to prosecute case against the Gram Pradhan.
In view of above, we find no illegality or perversity in the judgment and order impugned.
Hence, writ petition lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed accordingly."
In view the above, the writ petition is dismissed."
The same view has been taken in Raj Kumar Singh (supra).
The authorities are fully applicable to this case.
In the wake of preceding discussion the petitioner being a complainant does not have locus standi to file a writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021
Pravin
