HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9594 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who has advanced submissions on the basis of written instructions provided to him and who stated that the copy of written instructions be taken on record and he does not propose to file a counter affidavit. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki whereby financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan have been seized under Section 95 (1)(g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and an officer has been appointed to conduct detailed enquiry in the allegations against the applicant and to submit a report within 15 days. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit irregularities in construction of a toilet in Primary School, Piprauli, construction of a room and kitchen in Primary School Cheekapur, construction of two drains, re-boring of a hand pump. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Gram Pradhan alone is not entitled to grant approval for a work or to make payment. The approval has been granted and payments have been made after orders passed by the various authorities and proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner alone and not against any other person or authority. 5. The aforesaid submissions could not be disputed as the written instructions Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sikander .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) provided to the learned Standing Counsel are silent on this aspect of the matter. 6. From the aforesaid submissions, prima facie it appears that the authorities have adopted a pick and choose approach in taking action against the petitioner Village Pradhan and in not instituting any proceedings against any other officer or authority of the government who was involved in the process of granting approval of work and making payment therefor. When the action suffers from vice of arbitrariness, favouritism and discrimination, it becomes unsustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki so far as it seizes the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Necessary consequences shall follow. 8. It is clarified that the portion of the order instituting enquiry against the petitioner has not been interfered with and the enquiry shall be concluded in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, subject of course to the cooperation by the petitioner. October 14, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 9594 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench