1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3180-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 35 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Yusuf Respondent :- The State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyat Raj Deptt. and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri, Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anil Kumar Singh Visen (S.C.), Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. 1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent no. 1 to initiate an inquiry against respondents no. 2 and 3 in not initiating the recovery of Rs. 1,55,26,933/- against respondents no. 4 and 5 pursuant to the recovery notice dated 18.11.2023 issued by respondent no. 3. 2. It is, inter alia, claimed in the petition that petitioner is a law abiding citizen of the country and raises voice for upliftment as well as welfare of the public at large. The present PIL has not been filed with any ulterior motive, as the petitioner is a public spirited person, who has for long been engaged in various public activities. 3. It is alleged that respondent no. 4 was elected as Gram Pradhan of Village Panchayat Bheera, District Lakhimpur Kheri and committed misappropriation of public fund within a year with collusion of respondent no. 5, Secretary. From the report of Assistant Audit Officer, Zila Panchayat Adhikari, it was proved that there has been misappropriation of public fund, 2 however, nothing has been done, though respondent no. 3 issued notice for recovery of the said amount. Based on the said submissions, relief, as noticed, has been claimed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that though Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari has passed the order for recovery from the defaulting officers, no steps have been taken for such recovery and an incorrect assertion has been made that respondent no. 4 has given response to the notice that she did not work as Gram Pradhan during 2013-14, 2014-15 and her tenure started in 2015-16 on 26.12.2015 during which period in 2015-16, she has not got work done and has not made any payment and, therefore, the complaint made be closed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel produced instructions, inter alia, indicating that while steps were taken against the Village Development Officer, Mr. Ram Dhani Yadav, he has filed Writ- A No. 3201 of 2024, wherein interim order has been granted by this Court on 25.04.2024, which is in currency. On the response given by respondent no. 4, it was found by Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Development Block-Bijua that respondent no. 4, indeed, did not work as Gram Pradhan in the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and she had started work with effect from 26.12.2015, however, during the financial year 2015-16, under her signatures, no amount has been withdrawn. The Bank-statement obtained did not prove any amount withdrawn under her signatures. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that qua respondent no. 4, no case is made out and qua respondent no. 5, there is interim order of the competent Court and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 3 8. The order dated 18.11.2023 (Annexure-1), relied on by the petitioner, pertains to the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 wherein allegations have been made against Mr. Ram Dhani Yadav, Secretary. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, inter alia, claimed action against respondent no. 4 also to which, as noticed, she gave response pertaining to the three years, wherein for the two years she was not in office and in the third year, she did not withdraw any amount. The plea raised has been found to be correct by the competent authority and qua the Secretary, there is an interim order by the competent Court and in view thereof, no case, as sought to be made out by the petitioner seeking action against respondents no. 4 and 5, is made out in the present PIL. 9. In view of above, the petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 P.Sri./Jaideep (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench