AMAR SINGH MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. NAGAR VIKAS U.P. LKO. AND OTHERS
WPIL/417/2024 · 2025-10-29
Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 179092 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 179092 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 417 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
1. Heard Shri Shyam Mohan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vikrant Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioner alleges irregularities and misuse of government fund by the Chairman and Executive Officer of newly constituted Nagar Panchayat - Gaisari, Tehsil- Tulsipur, District- Balrampur. 3. On 15.05.2024 we had passed the following order:-
"1. Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.5 and the same is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner herein, a resident of a ward of Nagar Panchayat- Gaisri, District- Balrampur has filed this petition styled as a public interest litigation and alleging certain misdeeds by the Chairman and Executive officer of newly constituted Nagar Panchayat- Gaisri, District- Balrampur. 4. Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the concerned Nagar Panchayat says that allegations, as levelled by the petitioner, are Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shyam Mohan Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anurag Kumar Singh Amar Singh Maurya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
false and frivolous. The credentials of the petitioner are itself not above board. It is a newly constituted Nagar Panchayat and mother of the petitioner was Pradhan of a village, which is now included in the area of the said Nagar Panchayat and the petitioner has political affiliation with political parties, who have stake in the membership and functioning of the said Nagar Panchayat. Moreover, the petition has been filed only to draw political mileage in view of the ensuing parliamentary elections. 5. Let the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 file their response to this petition within four weeks. 6. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within next two weeks. 7. List thereafter showing the name of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh as counsel for opposite party No.5 in the cause list."
4. The opposite party nos. 5 and 6 have filed their counter affidavit recently. 5.
Without looking into the counter affidavit what we find is that if there are allegations of misuse of fund by the aforesaid Officials of the Nagar Panchayat, then, there is a provision under Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1960 under which the State Government has reason to believe that any of the eventualities as mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 48 exists it can call upon such persons to show cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from the office and thereafter, proceedings can be held as per the provisions of the Act and Rules, if any, prescribed in this regard for their removal, therefore, if the petitioner has a cause he can approach the State Government in this regard by moving an application. 6. At this stage, it is informed by Shri Vikrant Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State that in fact, the State Government has already conducted an inquiry on the complaint against the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 wherein nothing was found amiss. Copy of the said report is said to be annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner himself. However, the supplementary affidavit states that the petitioner wanted to give evidence in support of the complaint but the WPIL No. 417 of 2024 2
same was not taken on the record. 7. Be that as it may, if there is any cause the petitioner should approach the State Government as per law which shall look into the matter unless there is any legal impediment. We see no reason to proceed with this writ petition as public interest litigation. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. October 29, 2025 R.K.P.
WPIL No. 417 of 2024 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench