Allahabad High Court
SMT. HUSN ARAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The recovery order dated 16 May 2026 is set aside due to the petitioner not being served notice and denied a hearing.
Summary
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 whether the statutory requirement of notice and an opportunity to be heard had been complied with. Finding that the petitioner was prejudiced by the lack of notice and hearing, the Court set aside the recovery order. However, the Court directed that a fresh notice be issued in accordance with Section 27 and Rules 257 and 258, subject to the applicable limitation period. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with these observations.
Issues considered
- Whether the recovery order under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was valid despite the alleged failure to serve notice and provide a hearing.
- Whether the ex‑parte conclusion of the proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — s. 27
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 — s. 257, 258
Subjects
- Administrative law
- Due process
- Notice
- Recovery order
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act
- Ex-parte proceedings
- Writ petition
- Limitation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35556 of 2026
Smt. Husn Ara
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Rai, Jitendra Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
State.
2. The petitioner was a Pradhan from 2010 to 2015 and proceedings u/s 27
of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 r/w Rule 257 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules,
1947 were initiated after five years and admittedly, proceedings were
concluded ex-parte.
3. It is case of petitioner that notice was not served upon petitioner.
4. Taking note of above submissions and considering that petitioner was not
provided proper opportunity of hearing and she was not able to submit reply
to notice, therefore, petitioner is prejudiced and, therefore, impugned order
of recovery dated 16.5.2026 of Rs.3,34,392/- is set aside.
5. However, this order will not come in the way if a fresh notice is issued to
petitioner u/s 27 of said Act r/w Rule 257 and 258 of said Rules taking note
of limitation provided under said provisions.
6. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.
September 9, 2026
SB (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…