In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has stayed the order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of Brij Mohan, an elected Gram Pradhan, under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Justice Pankaj Bhatia, presiding over the case Writ-C No. 905 of 2025, has raised serious concerns over the denial of a preliminary inquiry report to the petitioner and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger bench.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around Brij Mohan, the elected Gram Pradhan, who was stripped of his financial and administrative powers by an order dated January 21, 2025. The action was taken under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, citing alleged financial and administrative irregularities. The allegations primarily pertained to:
Non-maintenance of hand pumps (2018-2023) – The petitioner was accused of failing to repair hand pumps despite funds being withdrawn.
Absence of toilets under Swachh Bharat Mission – It was claimed that certain households listed for toilet construction lacked such facilities.
Misuse of funds in Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (2015) – The petitioner allegedly failed to provide documents relating to beneficiaries of housing schemes.
Legal Issues Involved
Right to Fair Hearing and Natural Justice – The petitioner argued that the preliminary inquiry report, forming the basis of the allegations, was never provided to him, violating his right to defend himself.
Constitutional Mandate of Elected Representatives – It was contended that stripping an elected representative of his powers without a proper inquiry undermines democratic principles enshrined under Article 243(c) of the Constitution.
Application of the Vivekanand Yadav Precedent – The State cited the Full Bench decision in Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P., which held that a Gram Pradhan is not entitled to the preliminary inquiry report.
Observations and Decision of the Court
Justice Pankaj Bhatia scrutinized the grounds of the order and found it lacking adherence to due process. He noted that the allegations against Brij Mohan, particularly regarding hand pump repairs, did not establish financial irregularities for the relevant period. Regarding the toilet construction issue, the petitioner’s claim that toilets were geo-tagged was not adequately considered. On the third charge related to housing schemes, the court observed that payments were directly credited to beneficiaries’ accounts, and the petitioner could not be held responsible.
The court ruled:
“A drastic order denuding the elected Pradhan of his administrative and financial powers has been passed based upon misplaced reasoning and not considering specific replies.”
As a result, the order ceasing the petitioner’s powers was stayed until the completion of a final inquiry. The court directed the State to conclude the inquiry expeditiously and file a status report.
Referral to a Larger Bench
The judgment raises critical concerns about the interpretation of Vivekanand Yadav and calls for a larger bench review. Justice Bhatia questioned whether withholding the preliminary inquiry report aligns with evolving principles of natural justice, citing Supreme Court rulings in Deepak Anand Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) and T. Takano vs. SEBI (2022). These decisions emphasize the necessity of disclosing relevant materials in quasi-judicial proceedings.
The court concluded:
“A genuine doubt arises with regards to the conclusions recorded in Vivekanand Yadav… If a preliminary inquiry report is to be used for adverse action, it must be supplied to the affected party.”
