Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45294 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow) Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7252 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayti Raj Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Saryu Prasad Tiwari Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 15.07.2025, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were seized pending an inquiry, in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as a Gram Pradhan in the year 2021. Subsequently, on the basis of a complaint made against the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner is residing on a property which is Gram Sabha land and thus, he has occupied the property which is public utility land. Based upon the said complaint and on the basis of a preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure No.11), wherein it was stated that the Tehsildar had provided documents to demonstrate that proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, against which Case No. 3592 of 2023 was instituted by the petitioner before the Collector, who dismissed the same on 28.06.2024. Thus, a prima facie view was formed that the petitioner had misused his powers as a Gram Pradhan. The petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice. In the said reply, it was stated that the property in question, where the petitioner was residing, was owned by his father-in-law and a house thereupon was constructed around 30 to 35 years ago. It was also stated that against the order of eviction passed, affirmed in appeal and subsequent revision, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.45504 of 2025, which is pending. He specifically stated that ever since he became the Gram Pradhan, he has not made any constructions. Considering the said submissions, an order came to be passed seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said exercise of power is arbitrary and illegal, as there are no allegations that the petitioner, while continuing as a Gram Pradhan, has misused either his administrative or financial powers. 6. The learned Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions, which are taken on record, states that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code for his eviction from the land earmarked as public utility land. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, as well as the revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. It is stated that a writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner; however, no interim order has been passed by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sri S.P. Tiwari, places on record that apart from the said allegation, the final inquiry as contemplated under the rules is continuing against the petitioner in respect of charges other than the foundation based upon which the order impugned has been passed, and a three-member committee has already been appointed. 8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, in terms of the scheme of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Section 95(1)(g) confers a discretionary power for removal on the happening of the conditions stipulated in clause 1. The proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 prescribes the power to seize the financial and administrative powers pending an inquiry. The proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is quoted hereinbelow :- "95. Inspection - (1) The State Government may— (a) **************** (b) **************** (c) **************** (d) **************** (e) **************** (f) **************** (g) remove a Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat or a joint committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, if he (i) absents himself without sufficient cause from more than three consecutive meetings or sittings, (ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, (iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or [(iii-a) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or sub- section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the backward classes, as the case may be;] (iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or (v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A: Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government." 9. Considering the fact that the seizing of financial and administrative powers seriously affects the working of an elected Gram Pradhan, who has been elected in terms of the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which itself has been enacted in pursuance to the incorporation of Panchayats in Part IX of the Constitution of India, interference/seizure of the financial and administrative powers should be based on cogent and valid reasons. In the show cause notice or in the impugned order, there is no material to suggest that the petitioner, after being elected as a Gram Pradhan, has misused any of his powers so as to attract the stringent order of seizing the financial and administrative powers. The reasoning contained in the order are not suffice for the exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. As such, the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 is set aside. The financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall stand restored forthwith. However, the inquiry which is continuing shall continue and shall be concluded in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Pankaj Bhatia, J) Order Date :- 5.8.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench