Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 1794 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dev Narayan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko.And Ors Petitioner Counsel :- N.Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.P.Maurya Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Heard Ms. N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr
Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.
In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the Assistant Development
Officer (Panchayat) Development Block Dostpur, District Sultanpur
informed the District Magistrate, Sultanpur that the Prandhan of Gram
Panchayat Barhauli Sri Harihar Prasad Dubey was seriously ill and due
to his inability to perform his duties, all the developmental works and
schemes had come standstill. Accordingly, the District, Sultanpur
authorized the petitioner to discharge the responsibilities of the post of
Pradhan in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-J (2) of the
Panchayati Raj Act. Thereafter, by means of the order dated 30.1.2010,
the Block Development Officer, Dostpur, Sultanpur, allowed the
respondent No.4 to resume the administrative and financial powers of
the post of Pradhan.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has no legal right
to continue, as he was only entrusted the powers in officiating capacity
and now it has been withdrawn and as such, he cannot be said to be an
aggrieved person. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the
case of Rajeev v. State of U.P. and others [2008 (2) AWC 1630].
After hearing parties’ counsel, I find force in the submissions of the
learned Standing Counsel. When the opposite party No.4, who is an
elected Pradhan, became incapacitated, the petitioner has been
entrusted the powers of elected Pradhan under Section 12-J (2) of the
Panchayat Raj Act by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur vide order
dated 21.6.2007. Subsequently, the said powers were withdrawn by the
impugned order dated 30.1.2010. The controversy involved in the
instant writ petition has already been settled by this Court in the case of
Rajeev v. State of U.P. and others (supra). The said case is squarely
covered to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order. No interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy.
Order Date :- 28.7.2010
lakshman