Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135009 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26807 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Jayda Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Chief Development Officer/ Respondent No. 5 is under challenge in the present writ petition. By the aforesaid order, direction was given by him to the Deputy Commissioner (Labour Employment), Moradaba to recover Rs.2130/- from the petitioner who is elected Gram Pradhan of the village. 2. The aforesaid amount has been deposited by the petitioner under Manrega Scheme in the Bank account of deceased persons. 3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that this is not the order passed against the petitioner but this a report submitted by the Chief Development Officer, Moradabad to Deputy Commissioner (Labour Employment), Moradabad on 29th July, 2025. It further reveals from perusal of record that the aforesaid proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made against the petitioner before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Moradabad. 4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as soon as the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid report, she submitted a representation before the Chief Development Officer, Moradabad on 02.08.2025 and since no decision has been taken on the aforesaid representation, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29th July, 2025 should not be maintainable because this is the report submitted by one authority to another authority. Insofar as the second prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner to direct the authorities to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner dated 02.08.2025 is concerned. It is argued that immediately after submission of the aforesaid representation, the petitioner has approached this Court, hence the present writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. 6. It is further argued by the learned Standing Counsel that in case the petitioner will submit a fresh representation before the concerned competent authority, the authority concerned will take a decision on the same, expeditiously. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, the present writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating all her grievances before the District Magistrate, Moradabad/ Respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks from today. In case such representation is made, the Respondent No. 4 will decide the same, strictly in accordance with law within next six weeks. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad