Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38836 of 2018 Petitioner :- Amina Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon,Rahul Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abdul Mazeed
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
A prayer for adjournment is being made by Sri M.I. Farookhi on behalf of Sri Abdul Mazeed, learned counsel for the respondents, who has filed caveat in the present case.
The caveator has not impleaded as one of the respondents. He is only a complainant and as such, I do not find any good ground to adjourn the case on his request.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-respondents and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 31.10.2018, passed by the respondent no.2, i.e. District Magistrate, Mordabad.
Challenging the impugned order, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has been seized by respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Moradabad. In exercise of his powers under Section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and three members committee have been constituted to officiate in his place, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Moradabad which was without jurisdiction and was stayed by this Court in Writ-C No. 20557 of 2018 (Amina Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide order dated 30.05.2018. Subsequently, the District Magistrate issued a show cause notice to the petitioner.
Drawing attention to page 36 of the paper book, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the explanation/reply given by the petitioner was considered by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Moradabad only and the impugned order nowhere reflects application of mind by the District Magistrate as such. He further submits that the District Magistrate in such matters acts as a Tribunal. He has placed reliance on the full Bench judgment in the case of Shamim Vs. State of U.P. (2018) 6 ADJ 1 FB.
Learned Standing Counsel though sought to defend the order, however, could not dispute the aforesaid legal position and he also could not dispute the fact that the application of mind by the District Magistrate, is not reflected in the impugned order.
In such view of the legal position, no fruitful purpose would be served by calling counter affidavit or keeping this petition pending. On this ground alone the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back. The District Magistrate is at liberty to file fresh order after applying his own mind on the reply dated 17.10.2018 given by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice dated 12.10.2018 strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, present petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 SKG