HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10508 of 2025 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. None is present on behalf of opposite party no. 4. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 to take necessary action in respect of the financial illegalities and irregularities committed by the opposite party no. 4/5 in respect of development work of the village Khajuha Block Khiron District Rae Bareli. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 04.03.2025, expeditiously by a speaking and reasoned order." 4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 5 is the elected Gram Pradhan, duly elected in the year 2021. The allegation as made by the petitioner is that after being elected as Gram Pradhan, the opposite party no. 5 committed embezzlement of the public money in respect of the development work. It is also alleged that he did not make due payments to the labourers under the MGNREGA scheme. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned that the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Krishna Bihari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) interlocking work from the house of one 'Rajendra Kumar' to 'Shitala Mata Mandir' is of sub-standard quality and the sanctioned money has been misappropriated. 5. Several other allegations have been made in the writ petition against the Gram Pradhan/opposite party no. 5, more particularly regarding the encroachment made at the behest of the Gram Pradhan over the 'pond land'. 6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has approached the authorities but no action has been taken against the opposite party no. 5. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the application as contained in Annexure No. 1 is not in the proper form as per the Rule 3 of the Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. 8. The second objection as raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/opposite party no. 1 to 4, is that the allegations in respect of the MGNREGA scheme can only be redressed as per the provisions of Section 15-E of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guaranteed Act of 2005. 9. Confronting the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application afresh before the concerned authority, in accordance with law. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the present writ petition pending. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to prefer appropriate application strictly in accordance with law, before the concerned authorities within a period of one month from today. 12. In case such application is moved within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed on the same by the concerned authorities in the manner as prescribed under law, within a maximum period of three months from the date the same is presented before them along with a certified copy of this order. WRIC No. 10508 of 2025 2 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. December 10, 2025 Anurag WRIC No. 10508 of 2025 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench