Allahabad High Court
Sarita Devi vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Manoj Misra, Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1019 of 2021
Appellant :- Sarita Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Bhola Nath Yadav,Bal Krishna Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Varun Mishra
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
We have heard Sri B.L. Yadav for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 7; Sri Varun Mishra for respondent no.8 and perused the record.
This intra-court appeal is against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge dated 06.09.2021 in Writ C No.2527 of 2021 filed by the appellant (writ petitioner).
The case of the appellant is that she is elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bara, Block Sujanganj, district Jaunpur. Earlier also, she was elected as Gram Pradhan of the same Gram Panchayat in the year 2015. In respect of certain works relating to the Gram Panchayat concerned an enquiry was held in which she was exonerated but, on a complaint dated 22.12.2020, again an inspection and enquiry has been directed by orders dated 31.12.2020 and 04.01.2021. It has been submitted that under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 a detailed procedure for enquiries is prescribed by Enquiry Rules, 1997 therefore, a fresh enquiry would not be justified. Hence, Writ-C No.2527 of 2021 was filed to quash those orders directing for inspection, etc. The grievance of the appellant is that instead of allowing the petition, the same has been disposed off without interfering with the orders impugned in the writ petition.
Learned single Judge while disposing off Writ C No.2527 of 2021 has specifically observed that Section 95 of the U.P. Pachayat Raj Act, 1947 provides for inspection as a measure of 'external control' by the State Government and, thereafter, if it is found that fraud and other irregularities have been committed, action as contemplated under Section 95(1)(g) of the 1947 Act can be taken. Learned single Judge also observed that 5th respondent (in the writ petition) would ensure that whatever action is taken is in consonance with the provisions of Section 95 (1)(g) of the 1947 Act or any other relevant provisions of the Act, 1947 by taking into note the inquiry conducted earlier in this regard.
Learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the order passed by learned single Judge on the ground that the learned single Judge has not taken note of the circumstance that as the enquiry had already exonerated the petitioner, there was no justification for a fresh inspection and enquiry.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the order impugned in the writ petition was not addressed to the writ petitioner but, it was a communication by the Joint Commissioner (Development), Varanasi Division, Varanasi to the Block Development Officer, Sujanganj, Jaunpur to ensure that the complaints that were made are addressed by carrying out spot inspection. Similar is the direction in the letter dated 31.12.2020, inasmuch as, there also, a request has been made to ensure proper supervision of the work conducted under the Bharat Swachha Mission (Rural). The letter dated 31.12.2020 is also not addressed to the writ petitioner.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the record would reflect that on a complaint, vide order impugned in the writ petition, the Joint Commissioner (Development), Varanasi Division, Varanasi has directed the Block Development Officer, Sujanganj, Jaunpur to carry out spot inspection to ascertain whether allegations levelled in the complaint are correct or not. Such an order in our view, ordinarily, is not to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction, inasmuch as, being part of the State Administration, the higher rank officers of the Department concerned are required to respond on complaints to ensure purity in the administration. In these circumstances, if inspection has been directed on a complaint the learned single Judge justifiably did not interfere with the order directing for such inspection.
Moreover, learned single Judge in the order impugned in this appeal has specifically mentioned that if any action is taken against the writ petitioner, it shall be as per provisions of Section 95 (1)(g) or any other relevant provisions of the Act, 1947, having regard to the earlier enquiry, if any. We, therefore, find no good reason to entertain this appeal.
The Special Appeal is dismissed summarily.
Order Date :- 13.5.2022.
Rks.
