Allahabad High Court
Smt. Geeta vs The State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 25 November, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:211275
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37156 of 2025
Smt. Geeta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Adya Prasad Tewari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Kartikeya Saran, Pranav Mishra, Akash Chaubey, C.S.C., Pushpendra Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gorakhpur, dated 03.10.2025, nominating respondent no.5 to discharge duties and exercise powers of Pradhan under Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, pursuant to death of elected Pradhan on 06.08.2025.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of the District Panchayat Raj Officer does not reflect that the majority view of the member of Gram Panchayat had been obtained before nominating respondent no.5 to discharge duties and exercise powers of Pradhan. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain and others vs. State of U.P., 2021 (151) RD 161. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the District Panchayat Raj Officer has no jurisdiction to nominate a person to discharge duties and exercise powers of Pradhan, which vested in the District Magistrate.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has placed before the Court a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Pushpendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others being Special Appeal No.164 of 2010, decided on 22.02.2010 and also another judgment in the case of Shyamu vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (8) ADJ 459. It has been contended that in all the judgments, referred to above, it has been held that the Prescribed Authority before nominating any person to discharge duties of Pradhan must enjoy confidence of members of Gram Panchayat. There is no requirement that a meeting of Gram Panchayat should be called before electing a member among themselves, which has to be nominated by the Prescribed Authority/District Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Section 12-J of the Act of 1947.
4. I have heard Sri A. P. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Akash Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and perused the record.
5. The order impugned dated 03.10.2025 is a communication pursuant to approval granted by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 26.09.2025, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer is without jurisdiction. Pursuant to the death of elected Pradhan on 06.08.2025, the proceedings were initiated on a report dated 10.09.2025, submitted by Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Bhathat, Gorakhpur, annexing affidavits of members of Gram Panchayat in which 10 members have on oath stated that they have no objection to the appointment of respondent no.5, Sandesh Bharti, as the person to discharge duties and exercise powers of Pradhan till fresh elections are held. The said proposal has been duly approved by the District Magistrate vide his order dated 26.09.2025, which has been communicated by the order of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, dated 03.10.2025.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that in exercise of powers under Section 12-J of the Act of 1947 by the Prescribed Authority, the majority view of the Gram Panchayat was before him when he approved the name of respondent no.5 to be nominated as a person to discharge duties and exercise powers of Pradhan.
7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
November 25, 2025
Ashok Kr.
