Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 129531 (ALL)

SMT. CHEDANA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS PRIN. SECY. PANCHAYAT RAJ LKO. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/2901/2025 · 2025-04-09

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19918-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2901 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Chedana Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Lodhi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Ms. Atiya Abid, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.6 which is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. By means of this petition, the Gram Pradhan has challenged an order dated 23.01.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Unnao initiating preliminary inquiry in terms of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. 4. The ground of challenge is that earlier inquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was exonerated but ignoring this fact, the second inquiry has been conducted which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In this context, it is also stated that writ petition bearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.855 of 2024 [Sonu Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] was filed by the petitioner of the said petition malafide. Learned Standing Counsel says that in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 01.10.2024, a decision was taken in respect of the earlier inquiry on 10.02.2025 and the petitioner was exonerated. However, he has instructions to inform the Court that the second inquiry is in respect of different charge and therefore, exoneration in the first inquiry is not relevant. 5. We are of the opinion that petitioner may move an application to the District Magistrate, Unnao who shall get the facts verified as to whether the allegations in respect of which the subsequent inquiry has been initiated on 23.01.2025 are different from the allegations which were the subject matter of earlier inquiry or not. If they are different then of course the inquiry can proceed, however, if they are exactly the same then he will have to reconsider his order as per law. A considered decision should be taken in this regard within three weeks. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench