HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8043 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the original record produced by the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 30.07.2025 whereby, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner was ceased by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 3. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed against the petitioner was not in accordance with the prescriptions contained in Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up- Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. He further argues that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing of the impugned order, which is serious in nature. 4. Learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions argues that irrespective of the defects in the complaint as have been argued, suo motu powers vested in the District Magistrate and in any case, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the defects of the complaint as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs State of U.P. and others: 2011 (29) LCD 221. Specific reliance is placed on para 107 of the said judgment. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Singh, Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ajit Singh, Deepak Singh Abhishek Dixit .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayatiraj Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. As regards the non-grant of opportunity, the Counsel for the petitioner states that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner objected that the show cause notice is not legible as such, a copy of the show cause notice was sent through Whatsapp, however, no reply was filed and thus, there is no consideration of the reply in the order impugned. 6. The entire case is based upon non-grant of a pre-decisional hearing to the petitioner. 7. In view of the facts as argued and noted above, it is clear that the show cause notice was given and the petitioner ought to have filed a reply but without adjudicating the matter, the respondents are directed to grant post decisional hearing. 8. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice positively on or before 20.09.2025. On receipt of the reply, the District Magistrate shall thereafter pass fresh order taking into consideration the preliminary inquiry report and the objections/ reply filed by the petitioner, within two weeks thereafter and in accordance with law. The District Magistrate shall pass fresh order on or before 06.10.2025. 9. The fresh order shall supersede the earlier order dated 30.07.2025. The petitioner would have liberty to challenge the fresh order, in case the same is adverse to the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that no fresh notice is to be served to the petitioner as the copy of the show cause notice is already on record in the writ petition. 11. The original record has been returned to the learned Standing Counsel in Court. 12. The writ petition stands disposed off in the above terms. September 11, 2025 akverma WRIC No. 8043 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench