JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.
2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 25.11.1998 whereby the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 95 (1) (g) read with rules framed under the said Section has ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner to act as Pradhan and simultaneously appointed a Committee as provided under the said rules.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that impugned order dated 25.11.1998 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as, according to him, only the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could pass the said order, the District Magistrate had no Jurisdiction to pass the same. The order being illegal and without Jurisdiction, according to him, therefore, was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the District Magistrate had the Jurisdiction to pass the order ceasing the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan.
4. 1 have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
5. Order dated 25.11.1998 was passed by the District Magistrate In exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 95 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short the Act). Proviso to sub-clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 reads as under :
"Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges In the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government."
6. Power under Section 95 of the Act is the power of the State Government which can be delegated to any officer or authority subordinate to It. Section 96A reads as under :
"96A. Delegation of powers by State Government.--The State Government may delegate all or any of its powers under this Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it subject to such conditions and restrictions as It may deem fit to impose."
7. In exercise of powers under Section 96A of the Act, the State Government vide Notification No. 1648/33-l-1997-124/97/Lucknow dated 30th April, 1997 delegated its powers to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Sultanpur, therefore, had the Jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that impugned order was passed in violation of Rules known as U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans. Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997. But he has failed to substantiate his arguments from the material on the record. It is, however, observed that if the petitioner feels and he is so advised, he will be at liberty to file fresh petition challenging the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the same was passed in violation of the said Rules after placing on record the necessary facts and relevant material in support thereof. In view of the said facts, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
9. Subject to what has been observed above this petition fails and is dismissed in limine.