Rakesh Tiwari, J.@mdashHeard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel.
2. The petitioner claims himself to be one of the members of Gram Panchayat, village Bana, district Meerut.
3. It appears from the perusal of writ petition and the annexures appended thereto that ten members out of fourteen members of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, by means of an affidavit made a complaint to Chief Development Officer, Meerut regarding some illegalities in fiscal and administrative functions of respondent No. 4 - village Pradhan, whereupon initially a recovery of Rs. 1,16,509/- was directed to be made from respondent No. 4 as prima facie the aforesaid amount was found to have been embezzled by him. However, later on after enquiry the aforesaid amount has been reduced to Rs. 1218/- only, for which recovery orders have been passed.
4. It also appears that aforesaid enquiry had been initiated pursuant to an order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 31318 of 2008, wherein the Court ordered as follows:
The petitioners submit that on their complaint proceedings was undertaken as per the provision as contained under U.P. Pnchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan and Up Pradhan) Rules 1997 against the Pradhan of the village Smt. Kanti Devi-respondent No. 4. Petitioners further submit that inquiry officer i.e. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut has already made inquiry and thereafter report has been submitted. After said report has been received, District Magistrate, Meerut on 11.2.2008 has issued show cause notice to concerned Pradhan. Petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that in preliminary inquiry report has been adverse to the Pradhan of the village, District Magistrate has not passed order ceasing financial and administrative power of the Pradhan of the village and the matter is unnecessarily kept pending.
As inaction is being complained on the part of the District Magistrate, as such District Magistrate, Meerut is directed to see and ensure that pursuant to notice dated 11.2.2008, in case till date no decision has been taken, then final decision is taken preferably within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
With the above direction, present petition is disposed of.
Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the District Magistrate has not constituted any three members committee as provided in proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
5. The embezzlement of Rs. 1218/- and irregularities in administrative functions though is proved and recovery made, is a matter between the State and concerned village Pradhan. Merely because the petitioner is one of the complainants, it does not give him any locus standi to challenge the order impugned. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 rendered in Writ Petition No. 60988/2007 which was challenged in Special Appeal No. 177 of 2008, Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. In that writ petition, orders for preliminary enquiry passed by the District Magistrate u/s 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act against the Pradhan depriving her from exercising financial and executive powers till regular enquiry were quashed. Against the judgment in the writ petition, a Special Appeal was filed and the appellant therein claimed himself to be the complainant of the proceedings u/s 95(1)(G) and also a member of the three members committee constituted by the District Magistrate in that case. The Division Bench in the special appeal while considering question of locus standi of the appellant, held that special appeal by such person is not maintainable as he does not come within the ambit of "person aggrieved."
6. That case was a better case than the present one as in that case the complainant was also one of the member of the three members committee constituted by the District Magistrate whereas in the he is not a person aggrieved under Article 226 of the Constitution which view is also supported by the judgment in Amin Khan''s case (supra).
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
