Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 184776 (ALL)

DILEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. SECY. PANCHAYATI RAJ LKO. AND 8 OTHERS

WRIC/11451/2025 · 2025-11-25

Jaspreet Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11451 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 8 has been accepted by the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.9. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- "I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.2 to pass final order under section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 in pursuance of notice dated 08.09.2025 issued under section 95- A(Chha) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 by opposite party no.2 against the opposite party no.9, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.2 to take legal action against the opposite party no.6 to 8 in pursuance of wrong and bogus report dated 22/23.06.2025, contained as Annexure No.4 to this petition, in the interest of justice." 2. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has locus to maintain the petition inasmuch as it has been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Kumar Yadav, Mata Prasad Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Dileep Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) informed that the petitioner was the complainant upon which the proceedings have been initiated against the private-respondents. 3. Learned standing counsel has submitted that a notice has been received by the private-respondent. 4. In this view of the matter, where the matter is already seized by the authority concerned, this Court finds that there is no cause for passing of any specific order at this stage and needless to say considering the nature of inquiry, the authorities are expected to decide and take it to a logical conclusion with expedition. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. November 25, 2025 Rakesh/- WRIC No. 11451 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench