Allahabad High Court
Najma Khatoon vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 13 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63558
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 9777 of 2025
Najma Khatoon
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rajesh Kumar Singh, Shesh Mani
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Shesh Mani Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the District Magistrate, Balrampur to allow her to discharge the duties and exercise the power of Village Pradhan, Village Panchayat Khalu Bankat (Bilaria), Block Sridattganj, District Balrampur.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband Jabir Ali was village pradhan of the aforesaid Village Panchayatit. The petitioner, who is wife of Jabir Ali and Smt. Khateeja are also members of the same village Panchayat. It has been stated in the writ petition that earlier Village Pradhan Jabir Ali is the husband of the petitioner, he was suspended and his financial and administrative powers were seized about an year ago and he was removed from the post of Village Pradhan by means of an order dated 17.02.2025. The petitioner is claiming to be appointed in place of her husband who stands removed.
4. The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition on the basis of written instructions provided by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Balrampur wherein it is stated that the petitioner's husband Jabir Ali has been removed from the office of the Village Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and an FIR for commission of offences under Section 318(4) and 316(2) of BNS has been registered against him in Police Station Rehrabazar, District Balrampur.
5. It has been stated in the instructions that a member of the Panchayat, namely, Maqbool, S/o Shahadat has been nominated to act as officiating Village Pradhan by means of an order dated 22.09.2025 under Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The instructions rely on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shyamu v. State of U.P. & Ors.: 2010 (8) ADJ 459, wherein this Court has held that the opinion given by the elected members of Gram Panchayat will not be binding on the prescribed authority while exercising its power under section 12-J of the Act. Considering the Division Bench judgment in Udaivir vs. State Election Commission of U.P.: (2009) 106 RD 151, the Prescribed Authority, at the highest, should note the opinion of the members and thereafter proceed to nominate the Pradhan. Such a step, to some extent, will help the Prescribed Authority to know who enjoys the confidence of the members and this will help him to make an informal choice. The Prescribed Authority should ordinarily consider the opinion of the members if otherwise the name proposed would not be against any policy.
6. The instructions are taken on record.
7. As in the present case, the petitioner's husband has been removed on charges of commission of certain misconduct, if the Prescribed Authority did not find good ground for appointing the petitioner as officiating Pradhan in place of her husband and he has appointed another member of the Village Panchayat as officiating Gram Pradhan, which decision has not been challenged by the petitioner, there is no good ground to interfere in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
October 13, 2025
Pradeep/-
