Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Charan v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 45991 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15821 (20 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45991 of 2007

Ram Charan ......................................................................... Petitioner


State of Uttar Pradesh & others ............................... Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Ram appearing for the respondents.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.6.2007 by which the petitioner's financial and administrative powers has been seized by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers Under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The allegation against the petitioner is that he withdrawn the scholarship of Rs. 32,000/- on 22.11.2005 but the scholarship was not distributed; hence prima facie allegations are proved. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate. Petitioner was also detained in prison for more than six months in case under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs.32,000/- on 10th August, 2007 which fact has been mentioned in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. He submits that he could not deposit the amount earlier because he was in jail.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

In view of the case taken by the petitioner himself that the said amount was deposited on 10th of August, 2007. The allegation was of withdrawal of scholarship amount and its non distribution, is prima facie proved. By mere fact that the amount was deposited, the petitioner cannot show that prima facie allegations are not proved. According to paragraph 7 or the writ petition, the petitioner was sent to jail on 12.9.2006, thus it cannot be said that after withdrawal of the scholarship the petitioner was in jail hence he could not distribute the scholarship amount. The District Magistrate being prima facie satisfied , rightly seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner which order needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it is observed that the final enquiry be concluded expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.