Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Laxmi,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition questions the correctness of the directives issued by the District Magistrate, Sitapur to all the Sub-Divisional Magistrates in his district to ensure constitution of the Revenue Committee at the Panchayat Level in terms of Section 225-C of the U.P. Revenue Code read with Rule 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this would create a practical difficulty as has been alleged in the writ petition, inasmuch as the candidate, who has been defeated in the election, would cause obstruction in the functioning of the elected Pradhan. His submission is that this practical difficulty therefore should be taken into account in order to quash the said directives issued by the District Magistrate.
We have considered the submissions raised and we have also heard Sri Raj Bahadur Singh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the State that the statutory provisions authorize the constitution of such a committee. There is no challenge raised to the vires of the statutory provisions that authorize the constitution of such a committee. The District Magistrate has therefore issued a letter in order to ensure compliance of the said statutory provisions, which in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity. To the contrary, the District Magistrate is discharging his statutory obligations which cannot be interfered with on any ground, much less a ground of any inconvenience to the Gram Pradhan.
Apart from this, we may also put on record that the Legislature has the competence to frame any such rules pertaining to the constitution of a committee and it appears that the Revenue Committee of the village under the aforesaid provisions has been constituted in order to ensure the democratic participation of those who have been elected or those who had opposed the election. They equally represent the cause of the people. In such a situation, it cannot be said that any such provision made would be ultra vires the provisions of the constitution or the Act itself. Since the vires has not been challenged, we are not entering into the issue any further, but in view of the reasons mentioned here-in-above, no case is made out for interference.
The writ petition stands rejected with the said observations.
Order Date :- 26.7.2016 lakshman [Dr. Vijay Laxmi, J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.]