Allahabad High Court
Smt Vimla Devi vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary ... on 29 March, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:53905-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 258 of 2024 Appellant :- Smt Vimla Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary Panchayati Raj State Government Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bholeshwar,Nitish Ranjan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons indicated in the application supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed.
3. The delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Order on Appeal:
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 37657 of 2023 (Smt. Vimla Devi versus State of U.P. and 5 others) whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by holding that the petitioner-complainant has no locus to file such petition based on Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav versus State of U.P. and another [2010 (10) ADJ 1 (FB)].
2. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the petition was filed seeking disposal of the pending proceedings under Section 95 (1) (G) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner being a complainant is not entitled to file the writ petition, is not justified.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents attempted to make submissions that the proceedings under Section 95 (1) (G) of the Act itself is not maintainable.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.
5. The writ petition was filed with the prayer to direct the District Magistrate, Prayagraj (respondent No. 2) to decide the proceedings filed under Section 95 (1) (G) of the Act.
6. We are of the opinion that the dismissal of the writ petition relying on judgment in the case of Vivekanand Yadav (supra) apparently was misplaced inasmuch as, it cannot be said that being a complainant a person cannot seek expeditious disposal of the pending proceeding. In so far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents in relation to maintainability of the proceedings under Section 95 (1) (G) of the Act is concerned, the said aspect would be required to be examined by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj and no opinion can be expressed at this stage.
7. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 37657 of 2023 is set aside. The District Magistrate, Prayagraj (respondent No. 2) is directed to decide the pending proceedings in accordance with law with expedition, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of the order is placed by the appellant before the said Authority.
Order Date :- 29.3.2024 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) ------------- (Arun Bhansali, CJ)