JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan 1. Gaon Sabha, Noorpur Chhipri, in the district of Bijnor, which is a body corporate estabished under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Pradhan, Up Pradhan are the office bearers representing its popular will. Respondent no. 2. Siraz Uddin, and the petitioner, Nazakat, Hussain, are respectively elected Pradhan and Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. 2. The Up Pradhan, Nazakat Hussain, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4-2-1991 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, rejecting his application for impleadment in revision filed by the Pradhan against his order of suspension passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Meerut. The Act has conferred on the State Government powers of control and supervision over the Gaon Sabha and its office bearers and the same is contained in section 95 of the Act and one of such powers is regarding removal and suspension of the office bearers. The State Government, in exercise of its powers under section 96-A of the Act, delegated its power under clause (gg) to the Sub Divisional Officer having jurisdiction vide Notification No. 5681-B/XXXIII-2-237-72 dated October 14, 1976 (published in U. P. Gazette, Part I, dated October 30, 1976) which reads as under :- "In exercise of the powers under section V6-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (U. P. Act No. 26 of 1947. read with section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P Act No. 1 of 1904) ami in supersession of Government Notification No. 16/7-B/XXXIIl-23/72, dated August 13, 1974, the Governor is pleased to delegate the powers of the State Government under clause (gg) of Sub-section (I) of section 95 of the said Act to the Sub Divisional Officer having jurisdiction subject to the condition that any order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in exercise of the said power, either before or after the date of this notification, shall be revisable by the Commissioner of the Division and also by the state Government." 3. The petitioner consequent upon the suspension of the respondent no. The petitioner consequent upon the suspension of the respondent no. 2 took over as Pradhan and is continuing as such and is interested in usurping the office of the Pradhan as the Up pradhan has no independent power under the Act except that he exercises the powers of Pradhan in his absence or in the event of his suspension or removal. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Moradabad dated 21-7-1970, whereby he suspended the respondent No. 2, was challenged by him before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, by way of a revision as provided under the notification (supra). In the said revision, the present petition application on 31-1-1991 for getting himself impleaded on the ground that he is functioning as Pradhan, and is very much interested in, the matter. The Commissioner rejected the application vide his order dated 4-2-1991. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petition is being disposed of at the admission stage as no factual controversy is involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner made three-fold submissions :- (i) that the Commissioner had illegally rejected the impleadment application as he was interested person entitled for being impleaded in the revision ; (ii) that the petitioner as a public interest litigation has locus standi to get himself impleaded but his prayer has been wrongly refused; and (iii) that the impleadment of the petitioner would not have prejudiced any body's right except that he would have assisted the Commissioner in the matter as he is the person gearing up the proceedings against the Pradhan who has embezzled huge money of Jawahar Rozgat Yojna. 5. The first submission has no substance and deserves to be rejected. The petitioner who has usurped the office of the Pradhan consequent upon the suspension of the Respondent No. 2, does not have any legal right to hold the office. It is only by way of arrangement provided under the Act that when a Pradhan is suspended or removed or is not available, then the Up Pradhan is entitled to discharge the functions of a Pradhan, but this by itself does not give any right to the Up Pradhan; and as such on that basis he cannot claim himself either to be a necessary or affected party for being impleaded in revision. The forum of the revision, as provided under the notification, is not for settling any lis but is only by way of a check on the exercise of the powers by the Sub Divisional Officer and for this reason also the petitioner is not entitled for being impleaded in the revision. Apart from this, the right of revision is conferred on a person who has been suspended and no such right is available to the person who has geared up the machinery for action against the Pradhan in the event the Sub Divisional Officer refuses to exercise the jurisdiction under clause (gg) to suspend a Pradhan. So, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a right conferred on any person other than the person concerned who has been suspended. 6. The second submission is regarding his interest as a public interest litigation. The concept of public interest litigation has its origin in the Constitution and the forum available is also the adjudicatory forum therein. The petitioner, in his application, has given reason for his impleadment that he is a person holding the charge of the office of Pradhan, which fact by itself shows that he has developed a greed for the office and his greed cannot be said, in any view of the matter, to be a public interest. The petitioner cannot claim his impleadment by way of a public interest litigation. This submission has also no force. The third submission has also no merits. It rather goes against the petitioner. In fact, for the greed of the office, the petitioner wanted to get himself impleaded so as to jeopardize the claim of the Pradhan by delaying the proceedings before the Commissioner in revision. Such an approach is neither permissible under law nor can be allowed to come in the way of the Pradhan who has been conferred right of seeking redress against the arbitrary order of suspension passed against him by the Sub Divisional Officer. There is neither any material on record regarding embezzlement of the money of the Gaon Sabha or of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and even in the application for impleadment no such reason is disclosed. There is neither any material on record regarding embezzlement of the money of the Gaon Sabha or of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and even in the application for impleadment no such reason is disclosed. However, the Act itself contains ample safeguard that a person can be removed by the process of no-confidence motion, he can be surcharged for causing loss to the property of the Gaon Sabha and apart from this he can be criminally prosecuted under the criminal law. The person who has made the complaint on the basis whereof the machinery is geared up, cannot be held to be a necessary party. His status cannot be more than that of a witness. 7. For the reasons stated above, I do not find anything which may make the impeached order of the Commissioner illegal. Since the petitioner has no right for getting himself impleaded in. the revision, the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting his application for impleadment, is just. 8. I find no merits in the petition. The petition is dismissed summaril v. The appellant Hem Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to serve the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him under section 304 Part II of the IPC. The bail bonds of the remaining appellants shall only be discharged after they have deposited the fine awarded to them under section 324 IPC.