Allahabad High Court
JAIPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court set aside the impugned surcharge determination order and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for a fresh order.
Summary
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 on 16 May 2023. The petitioner also contended that this limitation ground was not raised before the Appellate Authority. The High Court examined whether the limitation defence was procedurally barred and, finding that it had not been raised earlier, nonetheless considered the substantive merit of the limitation argument. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 6 July 2026 and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order, allowing the petitioner three weeks to amend the appeal. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the surcharge determination order under Section 27 is barred by the ten‑year limitation period under Section 28 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
- Whether the petitioner’s limitation ground was required to be raised before the Appellate Authority and, if not, its effect on the jurisdiction of the Court.
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — s. 27, 28
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 — s. 256, 257
Subjects
- surcharge
- limitation period
- Panchayat Raj Act
- administrative law
- writ petition
- appellate authority
- remand
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35007 of 2026
Jaipal Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Raj Swaroop
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Deepak Raj Swaroop, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of determination of surcharge
passed under Section 27 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rules
256 and 257 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 and that appeal thereof
was also rejected.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has made a very specific submission that
Section 28 of Act provides a period of 10 years to initiate proceedings for
determination of surcharge, whereas in the present case the allegation of
irregularity is for the period of 2005 to 2008 and notice for the first time
was issued on 16.05.2023, therefore, he prays that same be declared void
ab initio.
4. The Court has asked a specific query, whether said grounds are taken
either in objection or before Appellate Authority, however, except a
reference to para 9 of memo of appeal and prayer thereof, no specific
ground was taken and it also appears that it was not even argued before
Appellate Authority.
WRIC No. 35007 of 2026
2
5. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that there must be a
consideration on above referred provisions and submissions since if it is
allowed, it goes to the root of case.
6. In view of above, impugned order dated 06.07.2026 is hereby set aside
and matter is remitted to Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order.
Petitioner will be at liberty to amend memo of appeal within a period of
three weeks from today. Subsequently, Appellate Authority will decide
appeal, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 24, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…