Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91014 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17498 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivam Shukla,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Hapur, by which petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,29,506/- as surcharge as per Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as well as consequential order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.4-District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Hapur are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Single No.156 of 2008 (Ram Vilas Vs. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and others) decided on December 17, 2021 only the District Panchayat Raj Officer is the Prescribed Authority for imposing surcharge upon the officers or servants of the Gaon Sabha. He placed reliance upon pargraph-20 of the aforesaid judgement, which reads as follows :- "20. For the reason mentioned above, the question no. 1, as referred to be considered by Division Bench, is answered in positive. In view of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 1969, by which Chapter- XIII with the heading ''SURCHARGE' was inserted in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 in exercise of powers under Section 110 by the State Government, as notified in the Official Gazette on May 31, 1969, the District Magistrate is the ''Prescribed Authority' for imposing surcharge on Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members under Section 27(2) and the District Pachayat Raj Officer is the Prescribed Authority for imposing surcharge upon the Officers or servants of the Gaon Sabha." 3. From perusal of the record it is clear that the order dated 09.05.2025 was passed by the District Magistrate, Hapur/respondent no.2 by which a direction was given by him to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,29,506/- as surcharge as per Section 27 of the Act, 1947. Taking into consideration the aforesaid order and without application of his mind consequential order was passed by the respondent no.4 directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount. From perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the impugned order passed against the petitioner to deposit the money as per Section 27 of the Act, 1947 by the District Magistrate, Hapur, who is not the competent authority to pass such order though subsequent order was passed by the respondent no.4 namely District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hapur but the said order was passed only in view of the fact that a direction was given by the District Magistrate, Hapur vide order dated 09.05.2025. 4. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed against the petitioner under Section 27 of the Act, 1947 by the District Magistrate, Hapur, is without jurisdiction specially in view of paragraph 20 of the judgement passed in the case of Ram Vilas (supra). 5. In view of the same, the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Hapur as well as consequential order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.4-District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Hapur are per-se illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Vilas (Supra). In view of the same, aforesaid orders are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 6. The writ petition is allowed. 7. It is made clear that this order will not restrain the respondents to pass fresh order, if so advised. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad