Smt. Radha Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Smt. Radha Devi vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 25, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484860

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/484860
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;D.K. Seth, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 25, 1997
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22222 of 1997
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 9 of 1994 as well as the amended Rule 33-B of the Rules are valid.

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 14; Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1994; Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 - Rule 33B

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Radha Devi

Advocate C.K. Pareekh, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 14; Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1994; Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 - Rule 33B
Cases Referred: Jhinkan v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari
Reported In: (1997)3UPLBEC1593

Excerpt

- - 9 of 1994 as well as the amended rule 33-b of the rules are valid.m. katju and d.k. seth, jj.1. by means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of amendment to section 14 of u.p. panchayat raj act by u. p. act no. 9 of 1994.2. a division bench of this court in special appeal no. 423 of 1997 bankey lal v. state of u.p. and ors., decided on 15-7-1997 [reported in (1997) 3 uplbec 1590 (db)] has upheld the validity of the above provision, following the decision of the supreme court in mohan lal tripathi v. district magistrate, rae bereilly and ors., air 1993 sc 2042: (1993) 1 uplbec 35 (sc) another division bench in jhinkan v. district panchayat raj adhikari, writ petition no. 22309 of 1997, decided on 14-7-1997, has also taken a similar view.3. following the said decisions, we hold that section 14 of the up. panchayat raj act, 1947 as amended by u. p. act no. 9 of 1994 as well as the amended rule 33-b of the rules are valid. consequently, we dismiss this petition.4. since a large number of petitions challenging the validity of the above provisions have been filed in this court and are pending, we further direct that all such petitions, whether they are listed before us or not, shall stand dismissed by this judgment and the interim orders passed in all such cases stand vacated.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and D.K. Seth, JJ.

1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of amendment to Section 14 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1994.

2. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 423 of 1997 Bankey Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 15-7-1997 [Reported in (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1590 (DB)] has upheld the validity of the above provision, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bereilly and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2042: (1993) 1 UPLBEC 35 (SC) Another Division Bench in Jhinkan v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, writ petition No. 22309 of 1997, decided on 14-7-1997, has also taken a similar view.

3. Following the said decisions, we hold that Section 14 of the UP. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as amended by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1994 as well as the amended Rule 33-B of the Rules are valid. Consequently, we dismiss this petition.

4. Since a large number of petitions challenging the validity of the above provisions have been filed in this court and are pending, we further direct that all such petitions, whether they are listed before us or not, shall stand dismissed by this judgment and the interim orders passed in all such cases stand vacated.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1997 Same Parties Smt. Radha Devi vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge M. Katju and ;D.K. Seth, JJ. Acts & Sections Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 14; Panchayat Raj (Amendme...

Civil