HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32282 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the District Magistrate, District Mainpuri/respondent no.2 to consider and decide the application/representation of the petitioner dated 25.06.2025 pending before the respondent no. 2 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 2. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner being social worker made a complaint against the sitting Pradhan of the Village namely Ratnesh Kumar. Ultimately on his complaint an order dated 11.11.2024 was passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 against the respondent no.5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid respondent no.5 preferred a petition being Writ C No.8296 of 2025 which was allowed vide order dated 15.5.2025. The order dated 15.5.2025 reads as follows :- "1. Order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Mainpuri in terms of provisions as contained under Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, is under challenge, by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid order has been passed in complete violation of provisions as contained under 95 (1) (g) (i) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length on 08.05.2025, District Panchayat Raj Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Singh, Rakesh Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gaurav Singh Chauhan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Officer was directed to file his personal affidavit explaining the reasons that under what circumstances, order impugned has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. It is stated in paragraph no.7 of the personal affidavit filed by him that till final decision is taken in the matter against the petitioner of financial irregularities, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has been seized. It is further stated that during final inquiry, the petitioner will be afforded full opportunity of hearing. Nothing has been stated in the entire personal affidavit regarding the facts that before the order impugned, notice or opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that impugned order has been passed in complete violation of provisions as contained under 95 (1) (g) (i) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 6. This fact is also accepted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents that impugned order has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents and perused the record. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Mainpuri is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. 9.The present writ petition is allowed. 10.However, this order will not restrain the authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law." 3. After the aforesaid judgement was delivered, again a complaint has been made by the petitioner before the respondent no.4-District Development Officer, Mainpuri in the month of June, 2025. 4. When a query was raised that under which provisions of law aforesaid complaint has been filed, no suitable reply was given by the counsel for the petitioner. Apart from the same, certain mistakes were also pointed out by learned Standing Counsel in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition. 5. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that present writ petition is not only liable to be dismissed but exemplary cost should also be imposed. WRIC No. 32282 of 2025 2 6. At this stage, a prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner to dismiss present writ petition as not pressed. 7. Taking a lenient view, present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. It is made clear that no liberty whatsoever has been given to counsel for the petitioner to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. 8. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate copy of this order to District Magistrate, Mainpuri within a week. September 16, 2025 Pramod Tripathi WRIC No. 32282 of 2025 3 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad