Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 175771 (ALL)

MEERA TRIPATHI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. PANCHYATI RAJ LKO. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/11610/2025 · 2025-12-01

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11610 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogendra Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf for the State, Sri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha/opposite party no.7 and perused the records. 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 16.10.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki whereby the financial and administrative powers of petitioner have been seized under Section 95 (1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. As this court does not propose to examine the merits of the allegations the learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that they do not propose to file a counter affidavit and learned counsel for the opposite parties stated they will advance their submissions in opposition of the writ petition orally. Accordingly, the petition is being disposed of finally 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to a show cause notice the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation. Although the order dated 16.10.2025 makes a mention that the petitioner has submitted an explanation, the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Meera Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyati Raj Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) points raised by the petitioner in explanation have not been mentioned in the impugned order, what to say about the consideration of points before seizing the petitioner's administrative and financial powers. The aforesaid defect vitiates the impugned order dated 16.10.2025. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Barabanki for passing order afresh after taking into consideration the pleas raised by the petitioner in her explanation. December 1, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 11610 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench