TUFAIL AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - C No. - 39733 of 2025

Tufail Ahmad
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Manish Tiwari, Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C., Manas Bhargava

Court No. - 36
                     HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated
4.9.2025 passed by respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. and the order dated
17.9.2025 passed by Commissioner, Basti Region, Basti, the respondent
no.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Village
Pradhan of Village Panchayat Nagapar Telpurwa, Block Khunijav,
District Siddharth Nagar. On a complaint made by respondent no.4, an
inquiry was held against the petitioner, in which, nothing has been found
against the petitioner and the authorities are again proceeding to get an
inquiry conducted by filing complaint before Lokayukta, U.P., Lucknow.
On the application moved by respondent no.4, again an order dated
4.9.2025, was passed by respondent no.2 Lokayukta, U.P., in which, a
direction has been given to the respondent no.3 to constitute Three
Member Committee to enquire into the matter and take action against the
Pradhan, who is the petitioner, and others. He further submits that the
term of petitioner as Pradhan has already expired and the Lokayukta has
no jurisdiction to pass any direction in this regard to the Commissioner of
the Division, regarding any illegality done by ex-pradhan. In support of
his contention, he placed reliance of Section 7 of the Lokayukta and Up-
Lokayukta Act, 1975, which defines the public servant, in which, the title
                                                                                          WRIC No. 39733 of 2025
                                                                   2


                                    of Pradhan is missing. Therefore, the order impugned passed by
                                    respondent no.2, Lokayukta, U.P. directing for inquiry is bad and the
                                    same may be set aside.

                                    4. Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as
                                    learned Standing Counsel, emphasizing upon paragraph nos.10 to 12 of
                                    the counter affidavit, filed by respondent no.2, which is taken on record,
                                    submit that though the complaint was filed by respondent no.4 before
                                    Lokayukta, Administration, U.P. against two persons including the
                                    Pradhan but as per Section 2 of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukata & Up-
                                    Lokayuktas Act, 1975, Gram Pradhan does not come under the above
                                    mentioned category, hence, is not under the jurisdiction of Lokayukta
                                    Act, as such, no inquiry whatsoever is being conducted by the
                                    administration against the petitioner. They further submit that there is
                                    nothing on record to show that officers are conducting any inquiry against
                                    the petitioner as the inquiry is only against public servants, as required
                                    under law, therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be
                                    dismissed.

                                    5. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the parties, it is an
                                    admitted position that Lokayukt cannot direct any enquiry against the
                                    conduct of a Gram Pradhan. The Commissioner has no authority under
                                    the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, read with the Rules
                                    framed thereunder to constitute a committee for holding enquiry against a
                                    Gram Pradhan. Therefore, the orders of the respondent nos.2 and 3, dated
                                    4.9.2025 and 17.9.2025, are not adverse to the petitioner.

                                    6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of
                                    with a direction to the respondent no.3 that the three member committee
                                    constituted by his order dated 17.9.2025, shall make enquiries only
                                    against public servant and not against the petitioner, who is an Ex-
                                    Pradhan, and has already demitted office in 2020.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    February 26, 2026
                                    Anil




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad