TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.)THE petitioner is an elected Pradhan of the village Panchayat Saidani, Block Sujanganj in District Jaunpur. It transpires that on the basis of some complaint made by the respondent No.6 and others, an enquiry was instituted by the District Magistrate and on the basis of the said enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 12.12.07 was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be removed under Section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act for being absent. The allegation in the show cause notice was that the petitioner resides with her parents and is not residing in the village on most occasions. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 23.1.08 denying the charges and submitted that on the date when the enquiry was made by the Additional District Panchayat Raj Officer, she had gone to Allahabad to look after her daughter who was admitted in the hospital at Allahabad. In spite of this reply, the District Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 7.7.08 held that since the petitioner was absent and the development work of the village was suffering, consequently one Nanku Ram S/o Muneshwar, respondent No.5 was appointed as the Pradhan under the provision of Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Based on the aforesaid order, a consequential order dated 15.7.08 was passed by the Block Development Officer to the same effect. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.
(2.)HEARD Sri R.C. Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Ved Mani Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Sri A.K. Shukla, the learned counsel for the complainant, respondent no.6.
The respondents in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state authorities has enclosed the report of the Additional District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 23.11.07, in which the authority has submitted that the petitioner was not present at the time of the inspection and, that he was informed that the petitioner had gone to Allahabad to admit her child in the hospital. The report further indicates that the petitioner stays in the village on rare occasions.

(3.)THE learned standing counsel also placed a report of the District Panchayt Raj Officer dated 14.8.08 which is a report subsequent to the date of the impugned order, wherein the District Magistrate after considering the report, again issued an order dated 14.8.08 affirming its earlier order dated 7.7.08.