Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129255 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25303 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Amarawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal,Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj/ Respondent No. 2 by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized is under challenge. 2. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that after the complaint was made against the petitioner by one Mahendra Kumar, he approached this Court by filing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 2208 of 2024 (Mahendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 8 others) with the prayer to direct the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to decide the matter, expeditiously. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, reply of which was also submitted by the petitioner. It is argued that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without application of mind, the order impugned has been passed by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. 5. In view of the order proposed to be passed today, notices need not be issued to the Respondent No. 3. 6. From perusal of the record, specially the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 which is under challenge that the same has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It further appears that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not at all been taken into consideration while passing the order impugned. 7. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed by the respondent no.2 without application of mind and without considering the provisions contained under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the provisions contained under Rules 3 to 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The order impugned has been passed in complete violation of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2011 (29) LCD 221. It is argued that time and again directions were given by this Court to pass a speaking order after recording prima facie satisfaction though even without recording any prima facie satisfaction, order impugned has been passed. 8. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj/ Respondent No. 2 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside and is hereby, set-aside. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. 10. It is made clear that this order will not be restrained the Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad