0

A word used at a different place in the Act or Rule may have a different meaning according to its context. : Allahabad High Court

A word used at a different place in the Act or Rule might/may have a different meaning according to its context was opined by the High Court of Allahabad through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE JUSTICES YATINDRA SINGH, RAJESH KUMAR, KRISHNA MURARI together in the WPs filed in case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of UP and another (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36881 of 2008), Smt. Kamli Devi Vs. State of UP ( Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45376 of 2008) and Kishan Vs. State of UP and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49305 of 2009 Het).

In these four writ petitions (WPs), the petitioners are Pradhans from various gram panchayats. Under the proviso to section 95(1)(g) of the Panchyat Raj Act, they were issued show-cause notices, and their right to exercise financial and administrative powers was revoked. They have filed writ petitions (WPs) in opposition to it. The WPs were relegated to the larger bench.

FACTS OF THE CASE: The petitioners were chosen as Pradhan of the respective Districts.  They were the subject of some complaints. A preliminary investigation was carried out based on the same. The District Magistrate issued a notice to the petitioners, in the WPs in accordance with the preliminary inquiry findings. The notice stated that if no cause is provided or if it is determined to be unacceptable, action under the Panchayat Raj Act will be taken.

JUDGEMENT:  Hon’ble court concluded by stating the following-

  • The DM may ask the preliminary inquiry to be conducted
  • A pradhan has no right to object that complaint or report is not in accordance with rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules
  • A pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary inquiry

nor is entitled to a copy of the preliminary report

  • In our opinion the word ‘otherwise’ in rule 5 includes and the DM can rely upon the reports only to cease financial and administrative power and direct the final inquiry.

And the bench decided that the files of these writ petitions along with connected petitions be placed before the appropriate bench for the decision on merit.

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY RIYA DWIVEDI

Click here to view your judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat