JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition in question has been filed questioning the validity of the decision dated 05.06.2009 undertaken by District Magistrate, Jhansi wherein financial and administrative power of the Pradhan has been restored back. 2. Brief background of the case as is emanating from the pleadings is that complaint has been made before District Magistrate, Jhansi by Smt. Kushma Devi, Santram Dhobi, Dhan Prasad Pal, Parshu Sonker members of Gram Panchayat Mahrajganj Teri and by Manoj Kant, Moti Ram and Smt. Kamla Devi resident of aforesaid gram panchayat. In support of the said complaint affidavit has also been filed by the aforesaid complainant. After said complaint has been moved supported by affidavit as is envisaged under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. District Magistrate passed order for getting preliminary enquiry conducted by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Jhansi. Said Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.7.2007 and found various financial and administrative lapses in various works which have been carried out. For this purpose show cause notice was issued to Pradhan on 18.8.2007. Pradhan in question, Lallu Singh submitted his reply and contended that Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Jhansi is not at all men with technical knowledge, as such in such a situation opinion which has been formed was not correct opinion. On this objection being moved, inquiry was got conducted by Junior Engineer, and said Officer has also submitted his report that office of Pradhan has been misused. Pradhan in question has embezzled Rs. 2,74,946. At the said point of time when report in question has been submitted, District Magistrate in its turn in exercise of its authority vested under first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, proceeded to cease financial and administrative power of the Pradhan vide order dated 04.06.2009 and said cessation of financial and administrative was to continue till the Pradhan was not exonerated in the final formal inquiry. Three member committee was constituted and therein petitioner was also nominated as one of the member and Chairman of said three members committee. Sri Shyam Ji Ram, Assistant Engineer, II D.R.D.A, Jhansi was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Three member committee was constituted and therein petitioner was also nominated as one of the member and Chairman of said three members committee. Sri Shyam Ji Ram, Assistant Engineer, II D.R.D.A, Jhansi was appointed as Inquiry Officer. District Magistrate, Jhansi while passing order asked to make inquiry as per the provision as contained under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 as amended in the year 2001 and report was to be submitted within 15 days. Thereafter pursuant to said order passed, the Assistant Engineer, II D.R.D.A, Jhansi on 17.02.2009 submitted his report and after the said report in question has been submitted, when final decision was not being taken, at the said juncture Lalloo Singh, Pradhan preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25634 of 2009 (Laloo Singh v. State of U.P. and others) and this Court asked District Magistrate, Jhansi to examine the final inquiry report submitted by Enquiry Officer and to conclude the proceedings against the Pradhan, in accordance with law and time frame was also provided. Thereafter District Magistrate considered the said report and has proceeded to revoke financial and administrative power of Pradhan, Laloo Singh. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been submitted that final report has been submitted on 17.2.2009 by Assistant Engineer, II D.R.D.A, Jhansi wherein it has been found that Pradhan has not committed any financial irregularities and it was also found that sum of Rs. 2,74,946 was sanctioned and Pradhan had incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,78,490/-. in this background no charge whatsoever has been made out. Final decision was not being taken, in this background directives were issued by this Court to finalize the said proceedings. It has been mentioned that petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition as he has no vested right to continue as Chairman of three members committee, in this background it has been requested that writ petition be dismissed. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and it has been stated that report dated 17.2.2009 is procured one and said fact was reflected that even for the work for which no fund was allocated, opinion had been given, in this background it has been requested writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. 5. 5. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. 6. Sri Sudama Ji Shandilya, Advocate, representing respondent No. 4 Lalloo Singh Yadav, Pradhan of the village raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of petitioner by contending that in exercise of authority vested under proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, three member committee has been constituted as an interim arrangement till Pradhan was not exonerated in the inquiry and once decision has been taken to exonerate the Pradhan in the inquiry then none of the legal rights of petitioner are infringed giving him privilege to prefer writ petition before this Court and as petitioner is not person aggrieved, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable at the behest of petitioner. 7. Countering said submission Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that under first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 there is provision of statutory complaint and once on statutory complaint inquiry has not been conducted in lawful manner and statutory authority has failed to discharge its duties and in that situation petitioner has got every right to maintain writ petition, as such present writ petition is liable to be allowed. 8. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case on which there is no dispute that in the present case as is envisaged under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules complaint was made by members of gram panchayat as well as by resident of aforesaid gram panchayat supported by affidavit. In the entire body of the writ petition not even single averment has been mentioned that petitioner who was member of gram panchayat had also filed any complaint before District Magistrate as envisaged under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. Copy of the complaint and affidavit which has been moved has been appended as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit and therein name of incumbents who had made complaint is clearly reflected and neither copy of said complaint nor copy of affidavit any where reflects that petitioner had also moved complaint under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. Copy of the complaint and affidavit which has been moved has been appended as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit and therein name of incumbents who had made complaint is clearly reflected and neither copy of said complaint nor copy of affidavit any where reflects that petitioner had also moved complaint under Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. Fact of the matter is that after said complaint in question was made, District Magistrate who exercises delegated authority of the State Government proceeded to appoint Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Jhansi to make preliminary inquiry in the matter and accordingly report was submitted on 31.7.2007. Pursuant thereto notice was issued on 18.10.2007 to the Pradhan and to the said notice reply was submitted by Pradhan and therein precise objection was raised that Enquiry Officer was not an incumbent with technical knowledge, as such it should be get inspected through person with technical knowledge. Request of Pradhan was accepted and Junior Engineer was assigned the task of making investigation and said authority after making inquiry submitted its report and based on the said report on 26.06.2008 financial and administrative power of the Pradhan has been ceased till he was not exonerated of the charges in final inquiry and during said interregnum period while appointing Inquiry Officer Assistant Engineer, II DRDA, Jhansi, three member committee was also constituted and therein petitioner was made Chairman alongwith two other members. Petitioner is not at all complainant and his creation on the spot was with the object to look after the office of Pradhan during this interregnum period till the inquiry was not completed. 9. Question is as to whether Chairman of the three member committee constituted during said interregnum period has any locus standii to question the validity of the action taken by District Magistrate exonerating the Pradhan of the village of the charges and restoring back financial and administrative power. 10. 9. Question is as to whether Chairman of the three member committee constituted during said interregnum period has any locus standii to question the validity of the action taken by District Magistrate exonerating the Pradhan of the village of the charges and restoring back financial and administrative power. 10. Issue which has been sought to be raised has been subject matter of consideration by this Court in reference of provision under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 in the case of Suresh Singh v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division Moradabad, 1993 (1) UPLBEC 414, wherein writ petition at the behest of Up-Pradhan was not at all entertained on the ground that he could at the best be a witness in the inquiry but has no locus standi to approach this Court as none of his personal or statutory rights are affected. 11. View to the similar effect has been reiterated in the case of Satya Pal v. IVth Additional District and Session Judge, Shahjanpur, 1997 (1) UPLBEC 106 wherein it has been observed that in the absence of Adhyakasha he may have a right to hold the office but he does not have the right to challenge the order passed by the State or the Court as he has no locus standi to challenge the same. 12. Question of locus standi viz-a-vis such incumbent who hold the office by way of interim arrangement has been considered at length by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt Kesari Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(3) UPLBEC 2727 and therein view has been taken that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner, that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. It is in fact an advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law. Aggrieved person must show that he has a more particular or peculiar interest of his own beyond that of the general public in seeing that the law is properly administered. Incumbent who had chance of officiating in case Adhyaksha is removed qua the same. Division Bench clearly opined that the said incumbent is not at all person aggrieved in context of the Act, involved and same is to be restricted to the person who has wrongfully been deprived of something or wrongfully refused something or his interest has been compromised. A person having a mere chance to officiate would have no locus standi in such a matter. Mere violation of law or making out a legal issue is not enough to maintain the writ petition. Relevant extract of the judgment, paragraphs 14, 15, 38, 40, 41 are being extracted below : “14.The question has to be examined also from the angle that in case the order had been passed by the State Government in favour of the petitioner, could the Upadhyaksha have claimed any right to challenge such an order. Looking to the provisions of the Act that an Upadhyaksha can only occupy the office of Adhyaksha upon a casual vacancy, it is obvious that the answer to the aforesaid question would be in the negative inasmuch as none of the rights of the Upadhyaksha are being affected by passing of such an order. It cannot be said that the Upadhyaksha suffers a legal injury so as to be defined as an aggrieved person having locus to challenge any State action taken against the Upadhyaksha. Conversely, applying the said principles, the Upadhyaksha will have no right to claim his impleadment as a matter of right to support an order which is against the petitioner. To support our aforesaid reasoning, it would be apposite to refer to certain decisions of the Apex Court on the question of locus standi and person aggrieved. 15. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. To support our aforesaid reasoning, it would be apposite to refer to certain decisions of the Apex Court on the question of locus standi and person aggrieved. 15. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. 38. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid that “person aggrieved” is to be considered in context of the Act involved and is to be restricted to the person, who has wrongfully been deprived of something or wrongfully refused something or his interest/ title is adversely affected, but the same does not require a very liberal and wide interpretation. A person having a mere chance to officiate would have no locus standi in such a matter. The party has to satisfy as what is the legal injury caused by that violation of law for the redressal of which the party has approached the Court. Mere violation of law or making out a legal issue is not enough to maintain the writ petition. 40. In the instant case, the applicant cannot claim to have any vested right to the office. He has merely a chance to officiate in case the Adhyaksha is removed. Applicant has a personal gain and his move appears to be politically motivated, therefore, it is beyond our imagination that he has come forward for any public interest. His application is liable to be rejected. 41. The question can be examined from another angle namely that if the State Government had acquitted the petitioner of all charges levelled against her, then whether the applicant have could approached this Court to challenge the order. The only possible answer is No. “ 13. His application is liable to be rejected. 41. The question can be examined from another angle namely that if the State Government had acquitted the petitioner of all charges levelled against her, then whether the applicant have could approached this Court to challenge the order. The only possible answer is No. “ 13. Said Division Bench judgment has again been followed in the case of Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) AWC 2002 wherein complainant intended to prefer Special Appeal against the order of Single Judge then view taken was that complainant at the best could be examined as witness in the inquiry but he cannot be permitted to be party in lis and he has no locus standi to maintain the appeal. 14. Said Division Bench judgment has again been followed in the case of Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (3) UPLBEC 2868. 15. In the case of Ramvyas Vishwakarma v. D.M. Sonebhadra and others, 2005 (3) AWC 2197 relied upon by petitioner issue of locus has neither been dealt with nor decided as such said judgment is neither here nor there. 16. Consequently, in the facts of the case inevitable conclusion is that while proceedings to cease financial and administrative power as an interim arrangement petitioner was made Chairman of three member committee and once District Magistrate in its discretion on the basis of report submitted by Enquiry Officer appointed to undertake formal inquiry and Pradhan in question has been exonerated then in such situation none of the legal right of petitioner has been infringed in any manner whatsoever and petitioner cannot be dubbed to be “person aggrieved”, merely because he has chance to officiate and otherwise has no vested right. 17. Consequently, on the question of locus, writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any passed stands discharged. ————