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


Chhavinath Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 35483 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11403 (13 July 2006)


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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Respondent no.4 Om Veer Singh was elected as Pradhan of the village in question in which the petitioner had also contested as a candidate. The petitioner claims that in terms of Section 5-A (c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Respondent no.4 would be disqualified for being Pradhan on certain grounds. Regarding the same the petitioner has already filed a representation before Respondent no.2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur. Section 6-A of the Act provides that if any question arises regarding disqualification as mentioned in Section 5-A, the same shall be referred to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. Rule 5 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Computation of Period of five years for Removal of Disqualification, Fixation of Period of Dues etc. and Settlement of Disputes of Disqualifications) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994) provides that where any question as referred to in section 6-A of the Act is raised, it shall be referred to the Tahsildar by the officer or authority before whom such question arises for consideration and on receipt of such reference the Tahsildar shall decide the same in accordance with law. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has made a representation to the Respondent no.2 with regard to the disqualification of Respondent no.4 for being Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and as such the same should be referred to the Prescribed Authority who in terms of  Rule 5 of the Rules of 1994 would be the Tahsildar.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

Since a dispute has been raised by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate with regard to the disqualification of the Respondent no.4 for holding the post of Pradhan of the village in question, in my view the same ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority who would be the Tahsildar in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1994.

In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the dispute raised by the petitioner by means of his representation dated 21.10.2005 before the  Respondent no.2 may be referred by him to the Tahsildar for appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Respondent no.2.

With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 13.7.2006


w.p. 35483.06


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.