JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. Supplementary affidavit has been filed. This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing order dated 12th April, 1993, which is Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition, and for quashing complaint dated 2nd December, 1991 filed by Respondent no, 4 against Petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has also been sought directing Respondent No. 1 Sub-Divisional Officer, Sardhana, district Meerut not to compel the Petitioner to submit the record hi- his Court and he should be further directed not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of Petitioner as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Azampur Mulsam. 2. Facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are that Respondent No. 4 Bachan Singh and others filed a complaint against Petitioner alleging certain irregularities and illegalities committed by Petitioner in discharge of duties and functioning as Pradhan of the village. The main allegations were that the work of laying out Kharanza was done by village people themselves voluntarily as 'Sram Dan' without any payment. However Pradhan has charged money for this and thus has misused his office and misappropriated the amount. It was also mentioned that the amount to the tune of Rs. 13,100 was realised from Hari Singh for fishing right in the tank of Gaon Sabha but he has not been given receipt, Rs. 10,000 has been realized from another person for collecting hides and bones of dead animals in the village, but no receipt has been issued. Certain allegations have also been made with regard to the other properties of Gaon Sabha which are not necessary to be reproduced here. The complaint is Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. On the allegations of this complaint proceedings u/s 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as 'Act' have been initiated against Petitioner and he was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 28th April, 1992 to explain charges against him. The notice is Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. Petitioner submitted his reply to Show Cause Notice on 16th June, 1992, which is Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. Thereafter Sub-Divisional Officer, Sardhana, Meerut, Respondent No. 1 passed order dated 22nd December, 1992 directing Petitioner to' produce all the documents of Gaon Sabha namely relevant muster roll register and Minute book etc. by 26th December, 1992. Aggrieved by this order Petitioner filed a revision before the State Government which was registered as Revision No. 1 of 1993. Thereafter Sub-Divisional Officer, Sardhana, Meerut, Respondent No. 1 passed order dated 22nd December, 1992 directing Petitioner to' produce all the documents of Gaon Sabha namely relevant muster roll register and Minute book etc. by 26th December, 1992. Aggrieved by this order Petitioner filed a revision before the State Government which was registered as Revision No. 1 of 1993. Revision was rejected by order dated 13th January, 1993. The order of the State Government was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 246 of 1992 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed on merits on 22nd January, 1993. The contention of the Petitioner that he could not be forced to produce the document was not accepted by this Court. It would be appropriate at this place to produce the direction of this Court contained in the order dated 22nd January, 1993 which is Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition: He further submitted that if the documents are retained for long, there will be obstruction in the perforating of his function as Pradhan as well as Gaon Sabha may surfer adversely. It is expected that the authorities, before whom documents have been summoned, will, if necessary, retain the Photostat copies of the documents to use for the purpose of inquiry but if the inquiries are being concluded within a short time, they may retain the documents till conclusion of enquiry but keeping in view and taking into consideration the facts that the working of Gaon Sabha and interest of Gaon Sabha may not suffer on account of delay. It will be open to the opposite parties to pass such orders in the matter as it thinks fit including the orders of suspension of Gram Pradhan. For the present, I find that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is not maintainable because the order under challenge is an interlocutory order. 3. It appears that after judgment of this Court Petitioner filed another objection questioning the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 1 on 22nd February, 1993. The Respondent No. 1 heard the Petitioner at length and thereafter has rejected objection by the impugned order dated 12th April, 1993; which is Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition, aggrieved from which this Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Respondent No. 1 heard the Petitioner at length and thereafter has rejected objection by the impugned order dated 12th April, 1993; which is Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition, aggrieved from which this Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length and perused the material on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Section 95(1) (b) and (c) contained the provision for passing the order in writing to call for and inspect the book or document in possession or under the control of Gaon Sabha or joint committee or a Nyay Panchayat and as these powers have not been delegated to Sub-Divisional Officer u/s 96A of the Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot pass any order directing the Petitioner to produce the document and the orders dated 22nd December, 1992 and 12th April, 1993 are without Authority. In my opinion, the contention raised by Petitioner is devoid of any merits and cannot be accepted for the following reasons: 6. Firstly that this Writ Petition is not legally maintainable as Petitioner raised identical controversy at Lucknow Bench of this Court and the Writ Petition has been rejected. While rejecting the Writ Petition on merits it was observed that Prima facie it cannot be said that Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to hold the enquiry. Nowhere in objection as to the jurisdiction has been taken before the Authority concerned and it will be open to the Petitioner to raise objection as to the jurisdiction before the Authority concerned. It will be open to the Authority to consider and decide the question of jurisdiction. From' the observations of the Court it is clear that the observations were with regard to the jurisdiction to hold enquiry and not regarding summoning of the papers. So far as the order of the State Government and the order of Sub-Division Officer dated 22nd December, 1992 summoning the record were concerned, the contention of the Petitioner was rejected. The Petitioner, however raised same question again before the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing another application which has been rejected. The order of this Court dated 22nd January, 1993 has become final and is binding on Petitioner. He cannot question the Authority of Sub-Divisional Officer for summoning the papers and this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on this ground. 7. The order of this Court dated 22nd January, 1993 has become final and is binding on Petitioner. He cannot question the Authority of Sub-Divisional Officer for summoning the papers and this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on this ground. 7. However as much has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the basis of Section 95(1) (b) and 95(1) (c) of the Act, I think it proper to consider the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. For appreciating the provisions of Section 95(1) (b) and 95(1) (c) of the Act, they are being reproduced below: (b) by an order in writing call for and inspect a book or document in the possession or under the control of Gaon Panchayat or a Joint Committee or a Nyaya Panchayat; (c) by an order in writing require a Gaon Panchayat or a Joint Committee or a Nyay Panchayat to furnish, such statement, report or copies of document relating to the proceeding or duties of the Gaon Panchayat or such committee or a Nyaya Panchayat as he thinks fit. 8. From perusal of the Clauses (b) and (c) of the Act it is clear that they related to the books or documents in possession or under the control of a Gaon Panchayat or a joint committee or a Nyaya Panchayat. These documents are prepared with regard to or during the discharge of judicial functions which may in short be termed as judicial record. For summoning such documents for inspection or otherwise, provision has been made u/s 95(1) (b) and (c) of the Act. The object behind enacting Section 95(1) (b) and (c) appears to be that the record pertaining to the judicial work may not be easily accessible to any body except the State Government and the sanctity of such record may be preserved. But these provisions cannot be extended to cover various documents prepared and maintained by Gaon Sabha in day to day discharge of its functions. Gaon Sabha has various functions and duties to perform through Pradhan and other office bearers and in this connection several documents are prepared but all such documents cannot be covered by Clauses (b) and (c). But these provisions cannot be extended to cover various documents prepared and maintained by Gaon Sabha in day to day discharge of its functions. Gaon Sabha has various functions and duties to perform through Pradhan and other office bearers and in this connection several documents are prepared but all such documents cannot be covered by Clauses (b) and (c). In the Act or the Rules there is no prohibition against summoning the record of Gaon Sabha during proceedings u/s 95(1) (g) of the Act and it shall be deemed that the Sub-Divisional Officer being an Authority competent to inquire into his conduct, direct Pradhan to produce all the documents necessary for holding and completing such enquiry. There is also always inherent powers with such quasi-judicial authorities entrusted with the job of holding enquiry, against a person or a body to get the necessary record. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted it shall become impossible for the Authority to hold enquiry u/s 95(1) (g) of the Act. This could never have been the intention of [the legislature nor there is any thing in the Act or the rules on which basis the submission made by the learned Counsel may be accepted. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Mohammad Kasif alias Baboo v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Salon 1989 (1) UPLBEC 600. I have gone through the judgment and in my opinion, there is nothing in the judgment which may help Petitioner in the controversy raised in this Writ Petition. 9. The controversy raised may be examined with another angle also. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the document can be inspected and summoned by the State only as provided u/s 95(1) of the Act. if the summoning and inspection of the document was necessary for exercise of powers contemplated u/s 95(1) (g) of the Act which has been delegated to Sub-Divisional Officer) u/s 96A of the Act then it shall be deemed that the Authority has been delegated with all the necessary and ancillary powers for effective exercise of such Authority. Thus the Sub-Divisional Officer can exercise all such powers of the State Government which may be- necessary for effective discharge of the Authority u/s 95(1) (g) of the Act. Thus the Sub-Divisional Officer can exercise all such powers of the State Government which may be- necessary for effective discharge of the Authority u/s 95(1) (g) of the Act. It is difficult to imagine that the Legislature, could have ever intended of delegation of Authority u/s 95(1) (g) of the Act to take action against Pradhan, without there being necessary power to get records of Gaon Sabha in absence of which it could not be exercised effectively. For this reason also the contention raised by the learned Counsel has no substance and attempt only appears to delay the conclusion of the proceedings initiated against Petitioners. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this Writ Petition has no force and is, accordingly, rejected.