Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The petitioners, former Gram Pradhans now serving as Administrators under Government Orders, were subjected to proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for alleged financial irregularities committed during their tenure as Pradhan. A notice demanding a reply was issued …
Petitioner Jaipal Singh challenged a surcharge determination order issued under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, arguing that the alleged irregularities dated 2005-2008 fell outside the ten‑year limitation period prescribed in Section 28 of the same Act, as the notice was first issued …
The petitioner, an outgoing Pradhan, faced two separate inquiries—one for alleged embezzlement and another under Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Notices for recovery under Section 27(1) and for inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) were issued, and the petitioner’s reply was …
The petitioner, who served as Pradhan from 2020 to 2025, faced a recovery citation of Rs. 4,12,717 under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, alleging embezzlement. The petitioner contended that a recovery order could not be issued without a specific order under Section 26 of the …
The petitioner, a former Pradhan (2010-2015), challenged a recovery order dated 16 May 2026 under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, asserting that she was not served notice and was denied a hearing, as the proceedings were concluded ex-parte after a five‑year delay. The Court examined …
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a mandamus directing the State of U.P. to restore a road constructed in 2011-12 on plot no.295 under the MGNREGA scheme, which had been removed by a subsequent Gram Pradhan. The respondents contended that the plot is bhumidhari (private) land …
The petitioner, Dhruv Pratap Singh, filed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to enforce a District Magistrate's order dated 19 September 2025 that required action against a sitting Gram Pradhan for alleged misuse of public funds. The …
The appellant Suresh alleged that his paternal uncle and the uncle's son, Respondent No.2, forcibly entered his house and the son shot his brother Rajesh, resulting in death. Respondent No.2 claimed juvenility, asserting he was 16 years old at the time, based on a school transfer certificate from …
The appellant Vijay Bahadur contested the election of Gram Pradhan in Chaka village, alleging a discrepancy of 19 votes between the Presiding Officer’s oral statement (1194 votes) and Form 46 (1213 votes) and claiming irregularities such as missing poll‑booth diaries and police interference. He …
Vinod Katara, convicted to life imprisonment for murder in 1982, later claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence based on a medical board report and a Family Register showing a birth year of 1968. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking relief under Section 7A of the Juvenile …
The appellant, Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary, was initially declared a juvenile in conflict with law but the High Court set aside that finding and ordered him to stand trial as an adult. He sought to prove his juvenility on the basis of a birth certificate, a school leaving certificate, an …
The Supreme Court examined the status of employees transferred from State departments to Gram Panchayats under the amended U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It held that the transfer under Section 25 was a deputation, not a permanent transfer, and that the employees retained a lien with their parent …
The appeal arose from the removal of several Pradhans of Gram Sabhas in Uttar Pradesh under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (as amended by Act 9 of 1994). The Pradhans challenged the provision, arguing that only the members of the Gram Sabha who elected them could remove them and that …
The appellants, Jeet Singh (who had two wives) and his first wife Mayawati, challenged the inclusion of two plots transferred to Mayawati in Jeet Singh's land holding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, arguing that Mayawati was a "judicially separated" wife and …
