Sahdev vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7882 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20481 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Sahdev
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition being Writ C No. 14312 of 2020 (Sahdev vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2020. The order is reads as under:-

"Grievance is that though a complaint has been made against the Village Pradhan but the District Magistrate has failed to act in terms of Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

Learned Standing Counsel points out that along with the complaint there is no affidavit. It is submitted that by virtue of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 unless a complaint is accompanied by an affidavit the District Magistrate is not expected to take cognizance.

Objection raised on behalf of the respondents appears to have substance. Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 clearly lays down the procedure for entertaining such complaint. Sub-rule 2 provides that a complaint has to be supported by affidavit. Sub-rule 5 of Rule 3 further provides that a complaint which does not comply with any of the provisions of the Enquiry Rules is not liable to be entertained. Since it is not shown that any affidavit has been filed along with the complaint, therefore, no direction is required to be issued to the District Magistrate for processing the complaint made against the Pradhan concerned.

Writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dismissal of this petition, however, will not preclude the petitioner from making a fresh complaint along with affidavit and in case such a complaint is made as per the Rules of 1997 the same shall be attended to by the 2nd respondent, in accordance with the Enquiry Rules, 1997."

It is argued that after the aforesaid order was passed, a fresh complaint was made along-with the affidavits on 07.07.2021, copies of which were appended as Annexure-3 to the present petition.

It is argued that considerable time has already been lapsed but till date no action has been taken in the matter.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the concerned court below to consider and decide the aforesaid matter in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

Order Date :- 25.7.2022

Swati