Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 183 of 2019 Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shashank Singh,Vijeta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
The appeal assails the order of the writ court dated 21.12.2018 by which the writ petition of the respondent No.3 challenging the order passed against him under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed.
The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 24 days.
We are convinced that the petitioner-appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
Accordingly, delay is condoned.
Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2019.
Heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal.
Sri Yadav, takes preliminary objection that the petitioner- appellant is only a complainant and therefore is not a person aggrieved if the order passed under Section 95(1) (g) of the Act against the respondent No.3 has been set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the petitioner-appellant was heard by the writ court and since the enquiry against the respondent No.3 was initiated his complaint, he is a aggrieved party.
We are not convinced by the submission so advanced as a complainant in such cases cannot be permitted to be made a party to the lis itself and at best can be a person who may lead evidence to establish the correctness of the complaint.
This is what has also been laid down by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others 2008 (4) ADJ 559 (DB) wherein the matter was also in relation to seizure of administrative and financial powers of the Gram Pradhan of the Act. The court refused to entertain the appeal of the complainant holding that the complainant at the most can be examined as a witness in the enquiry but he cannot be permitted to became party in the lis and that does not have any locus standi to maintain the appeal.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position, we are of the opinion that the petitioner- appellant who is complainant has no right to maintain this appeal.
It is accordingly, dismissed as misconceived.
The enquiry if any pending may be completed expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 piyush