Smt. Omvati v. State of U.P. Through Secretary Panchayati Raj and 5 Others

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11324 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt. Omvati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Panchayati Raj And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zafar Abbas,Imtiaz Husain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manas Bhargava Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Chandpur, Block Bhagatpur Tanda, District Moradabad. On a complaint made by respondent no.6, an inquiry was held against the petitioner, in which, nothing has been found against the petitioner and the authorities are again proceeding to get an inquiry conducted by filing complaint before Lokayukta, U.P., Lucknow. On the application moved by respondent no.6, again an impugned order dated 16.03.2022 was passed by respondent no.2 Lokayukta, U.P., in which, a direction has been given to the concerned authority to constitute Three Member Committee to enquire into the matter and take action against the Pradhan, who is the petitioner and others. He further submits that the term of petitioner as Pradhan has already expired and the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to pass any direction in this regard to the District Magistrate regarding any illegality done by ex-pradhan. In support of his contention, he placed reliance of Section 7 of the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1975, which defines the public servant, in which, the title of Pradhan is missing. Therefore, the order impugned passed by respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. directing for inquiry is bad and the same may be set aside. Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Standing Counsel, emphasizing upon paragraph nos.4 and 7 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent no.2, which is taken on record, submit that though the complaint was filed by respondent no.6 before Lokayukta, Administration, U.P. against two persons including the Pradhan but as per Section 2 of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukata & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975, Gram Pradhan does not come under the above mentioned category, hence, is not under the jurisdiction of Lokayukta Act due to which no inquiry whatsoever is being conducted by the administration against the petitioner. They further submit that there is nothing on record to show that officers are conducting any inquiry against the petitioner as the inquiry is only against public servants, as required under law, therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as misconceived. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 Rahul. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad