HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 39733 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.9.2025 passed by respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. and the order dated 17.9.2025 passed by Commissioner, Basti Region, Basti, the respondent no.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Nagapar Telpurwa, Block Khunijav, District Siddharth Nagar. On a complaint made by respondent no.4, an inquiry was held against the petitioner, in which, nothing has been found against the petitioner and the authorities are again proceeding to get an inquiry conducted by filing complaint before Lokayukta, U.P., Lucknow. On the application moved by respondent no.4, again an order dated 4.9.2025, was passed by respondent no.2 Lokayukta, U.P., in which, a direction has been given to the respondent no.3 to constitute Three Member Committee to enquire into the matter and take action against the Pradhan, who is the petitioner, and others. He further submits that the term of petitioner as Pradhan has already expired and the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to pass any direction in this regard to the Commissioner of the Division, regarding any illegality done by ex-pradhan. In support of his contention, he placed reliance of Section 7 of the Lokayukta and Up- Lokayukta Act, 1975, which defines the public servant, in which, the title Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Tiwari, Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manas Bhargava Tufail Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of Pradhan is missing. Therefore, the order impugned passed by respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. directing for inquiry is bad and the same may be set aside. 4. Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Standing Counsel, emphasizing upon paragraph nos.10 to 12 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent no.2, which is taken on record, submit that though the complaint was filed by respondent no.4 before Lokayukta, Administration, U.P. against two persons including the Pradhan but as per Section 2 of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukata & Up- Lokayuktas Act, 1975, Gram Pradhan does not come under the above mentioned category, hence, is not under the jurisdiction of Lokayukta Act, as such, no inquiry whatsoever is being conducted by the administration against the petitioner. They further submit that there is nothing on record to show that officers are conducting any inquiry against the petitioner as the inquiry is only against public servants, as required under law, therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that Lokayukt cannot direct any enquiry against the conduct of a Gram Pradhan. The Commissioner has no authority under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, read with the Rules framed thereunder to constitute a committee for holding enquiry against a Gram Pradhan. Therefore, the orders of the respondent nos.2 and 3, dated 4.9.2025 and 17.9.2025, are not adverse to the petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 that the three member committee constituted by his order dated 17.9.2025, shall make enquiries only against public servant and not against the petitioner, who is an Ex- Pradhan, and has already demitted office in 2020. February 26, 2026 Anil WRIC No. 39733 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad