HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9639 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Syed Ahmad Jamal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri U.C. Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the Caveator. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki whereby while instituting an inquiry against the petitioner, her financial and administrative powers have been seized under Section 95(1)(G) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947. 3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has received detailed written instructions in the matter and he has stated that he would oppose the writ petition on the basis of the those instructions which may be taken on record and as the detailed version of the State has already come on record, there is no necessity for calling for a counter affidavit. 4. The impugned order states that an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, who is Village Pradhan of Village Ahamyia, Banikodar, District- Barabanki in which a report has been submitted. During inquiry, a notice dated 07.07.2025 was sent to the petitioner which refers to point No.2 of the complaint filed against the petitioner regarding which the inquiry was conducted. The notice states that it has come to light that the husband of the petitioner- Ajay Kumar and her relative Avadhesh Kumar have received money under MGNREGA Scheme in violation of the relevant Government Order dated 06.02.2024. The particulars of payments have been mentioned in the notice in a tabular form which indicates that the petitioner's husband had initially worked for four days in January 2021 and thereafter, he has received payments for working under MGNREGA Scheme in the month of August, September, October, November and December 2021. Her relative Avadhesh Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Ahmad Jamal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Aneeta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Kumar has received payments for working under MGNREGA Scheme in the month of October, November and December 2021. 5. The Government Order in question was issued on 06.02.2024 and it cannot have any retrospective operation. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of violation of a Government Order dated 06.02.2024, made in the year 2021. Moreover, the Government Order dated 06.02.2024, does not prohibit employment of family members of Gram Pradhan under MGNREGA Scheme and it merely provides that in case family members and relatives of Gram Pradhan apply for issuance of a job card or working as unskilled labour, before making payments to them, it shall be verified by the Assistant Development Officer or Block Development Officer whether they have actually worked under the Scheme. Therefore, the seizing of financial and administrative powers of the petitioner on the allegation that her husband and a relative have received payments under MGNREGA Scheme in the year 2021, commencing on 04.01.2021 whereas the petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan in the month of May 2021, shows that the seizure of financial powers of the petitioner is not justified as petitioner's husband had been working under MGNREGA Scheme and was being made payment since before her election as Village Pradhan. 5. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that seizure of financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan of Village Ahamyia, Banikodar, District- Barabanki is unsustainable in law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki, only to the extent that it seizes the financial and administrative power of the petitioner, is quashed and it is made clear that the order dated 17.09.2025 has not been set-aside to the extend that it orders an inquiry against the petitioner and it is observed that the inquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. October 9, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 9639 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench