Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46084 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7630 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Maurya @ Umendra Kumar Maurya And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Upadhyay,Amitesh Mishra,Shivanshu Upadhyay,Suchindra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh,Suresh Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Short counter affidavit, filed on behalf of opposite party no.6, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent(s) as well as Shri Suresh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.6 and perused the material brought on record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: "(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur, appointing the opposite party no.6, on the post Gram Pradhan. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to nominate the Gram Pradhan after considering the opinions of elected members of Gram Panchayat." 4. Brief facts of the present case is that, one Geeta Devi was holding the post of 'Gram Pradhan' and unfortunately died on 16.05.2025, her death was informed to the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) and the same was also informed to the District Magistrate with a request for filling the post, which was rendered vacant on account of death of the elected Gram Pradhan. The District Magistrate, in pursuance to the powers vested in him by virtue of Section 12-J of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 appointed the opposite party no.6 as 'Gram Pradhan', the said order is under challenged. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that, even for exercise of powers under Section 12-J of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, it is essential and incumbent that the wishes of the other members are taken into account, this aspect was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Shyamu vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' and follow in the case of 'Shyam Rang and 06 others vs. State of U.P.' 6. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon instructions, which are taken on record, states that the views of the other members was not taken prior to passing of the appointment order of the respondent no.6. 7. Shri Suresh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6, states that, view of the petitioners are not even members of the Gram Panchayat. Irrespective of the said, the fact that emerges is that the wishes of the other Gram Panchayat member was not taken prior to passing of the appointment order in favour of respondent no.6. The said manner of appointment, is contrary to the law as declared in the case of Shyamu vs. State of U.P. (supra) and Shyam Rang and others vs. State of U.P. (supra). 8. Following the aforesaid judgments, the order impugned dated 26.06.2025 is set-aside with a direction to the District Panchayat Raj Officer to take steps for appointment of the Gram Pradhan afresh in the light of the directions given in the said two judgments extracted above, with all expedition, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. 10. It is made clear that the respondent no.6 would also be entitled to be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench