Allahabad High Court
DHRUV PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the petitioner's grievance was already redressed and therefore the writ petition stands disposed.
Summary
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 Division Bench noted that a notice under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 had been issued and a response received, but no further action had been taken. The State counsel later submitted that a report had been filed on 12 February 2026, the quantified amount had been deposited by the Pradhan and Secretary, and that the proceedings were in accordance with law. The court observed that the matter was primarily financial and, given the deposit of the amount, the proceedings under the Act should be finalized. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's grievance was already redressed and disposed of the writ petition, leaving the respondents free to proceed as per law.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents complied with the District Magistrate's order to take action against the Gram Pradhan under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
- Whether further judicial direction is required to enforce the notice issued under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — s. 95(1)(g)
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- Panchayat Raj
- misuse of public funds
- Section 95
- financial compliance
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3883 of 2025
Dhruv Pratap Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhaiya Lal Yadav, Raj Bihari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Deepak Gaur
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
2. The instant public interest litigation is preferred for a direction to the
respondent Authority to comply the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the
District Magistrate, Jalaun and take action against the sitting Pradhan and
to prevent the misuse of public funds.
3. The Division Bench while entertaining the instant writ petition on
04.02.2026 has proceeded to observe :
"1. A perusal of the instructions produced only indicates that some action has been
initiated against the officers, however, despite notice issued under Section 95(1)(g) of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to the Gram Pradhan and its response having been received
on 17.11.2025, no action appears to have been taken under the provisions of the Act, so
far.
2. Learned Standing Counsel prays for time to obtain instructions in this regard.
3. Needful may be done before the next date.
4. List on 19.03.2026, as fresh. "
4. In response to the aforesaid direction, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has placed the detailed
instructions sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jalaun dated
17.03.2026, which is taken on record. He submits that in the instant
WPIL No. 3883 of 2025
2
proceeding, initially, the report has been submitted on 12.02.2026 and
consequently, the amount which had been quantified has already been
deposited by the Pradhan and Secretary. He submits that the proceedings
are all in accordance with law.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are prima facie of the
opinion as the matter relates to the financial matter and consequently, in
response to the enquiry report, the amount has already been deposited, we
observe that the proceeding under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must
be finalized in accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.
7. So far as the enquiry report is concerned, we find that the grievance of
the petitioner is already redressed, we leave it open to the respondent
Authority to proceed in accordance with law.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
March 19, 2026
Priya
Digitally signed by :-
PRIYA KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…