Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1186/2025 of SUSHIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY PANCHAYATIRAJ/RURAL on 25 April 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 30D WPMS No. 1186 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 30D
WPMS No. 1186 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner seeks direction to pass appropriate order on the complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent no.4 on 22.03.2025 as also seeking direction to the respondent no.2 for conducting enquiry against the respondent no.4 in accordance with the provisions of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”) and U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (“the Rules”). Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made a complaint against the respondent no.4 under Section 125 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules, but the petitioner apprehends that action in accordance with law may not be taken by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, therefore, directions may be issued. He would submit that in another complaint, the respondent no.2 has taken cognizance on the next day of the receipt of the complaint, whereas, in the instant matter, the complaint has yet not been proceeded despite expiry of about a month. If a public officer has to discharge his functions according to the statutory provisions and rules, perhaps in each case direction of this Court is not required, directing that public officer to discharge the duties as per statutory provisions. Every public officer is supposed to discharge his duties, in accordance with statutory provisions, rules and regulations. In the instant case also, this Court has no doubt that the respondent nos. 1
and 2 shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. For that matter, no directions are required. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.04.2025 Jitendra