Vipin Sinha, J.— Case has been taken-up in the revised list. None is present for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is present. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, making the following prayers: "I. issue a writ, order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to hold proper enquiry against the respondent No. 6 in pursuance of application dated 25.3.2010 made by the petitioner. II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the application dated 25.3.2010 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. III. to issue any other writ, direction or order and grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. to order for cost." 3. It is, inter alia, averred that the respondent No. 6, elected Pradhan of Village Malsil, Block Mariyahu, District Jaunpur, committed irregularities in respect of several schemes and also committed misappropriation of Gram Sabha Fund; and that despite several applications having been submitted including the application dated 25.3.2010 by the petitioner, nothing has been done in the matter. 4. On 13.1.2011, this Court passed the following order: "Issue notice pending admission. Notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel. Notice on behalf of the respondent No. 6 has been accepted by Sri M.N. Singh. Therefore, no notice need be sent to the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel states that he has received instructions in the matter. As per the instructions received, learned Standing Counsel states that preliminary enquiry in the matter was directed by the District Magistrate by the order dated 23.2.2003 and that the preliminary enquiry is still going on, and the date fixed in the preliminary enquiry was 11.1.2011. Rule 4 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removeal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 deals with the preliminary enquiry. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that the Enquiry Officer shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within thirty days of his having been so ordered. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that the Enquiry Officer shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within thirty days of his having been so ordered. In the present case, as per the instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel, the preliminary enquiry is still going on even though, almost two years have elapsed since the passing of the order by the District Magistrate on 23.2.2009. The Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 5) as well as the District Magistrate, Jaunpur (respondent No. 2) are directed to file their respective personal affidavits explaining as to under what circumstances, the preliminary enquiry has been continuing for about two years despite provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules for completion of such enquiry and submission of Report within thirty days of such enquiry being ordered. Such Affidavits will be filed by the next date fixed in the matter. List this case on 24.1.2011. Certified copy of this order will be supplied to Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel without payment of charges today. 5. In response to the notices issued pursuant to the above order dated 13.1.2011, the Affidavits were filed, as noted in the following order dated 5.4.2011: "Pursuant to the order dated 13.1.2011, the following Affidavits have been filed: (a) Personal Affidavit, sworn by Gaurav Dayal, District Magistrate, Jaunpur along with Civil Misc. Application 26105 of 2011. (b) Compliance Affidavit, sworn by Shesh Narain Dubey, Deputy Director of Agriculture (Enquiry Officer- respondent No. 5). (c) Counter-Affidavit, sworn by Ashok Kumar Srivastava, District Panchayat Raj Officer-respondent No. 4. Sri L.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing Replies to the aforesaid Affidavits. List thereafter." 6. In the Personal Affidavit, sworn by Gaurav Dayal, District Magistrate, Jaunpur, the following averments have been made in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the said Affidavit: "14. That very recently when the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 13.1.2011 was received by the deponent, immediately necessary direction was issued to the Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry and complete it immediately. That very recently when the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 13.1.2011 was received by the deponent, immediately necessary direction was issued to the Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry and complete it immediately. In pursuance to the direction of the deponent, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a detailed report dated 18.1.2011 wherein he has also submitted an explanation as to why there is inordinate delay in completing the enquiry. A copy of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Deputy Director (Agriculture) is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. 15. That the deponent has immediately gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer and has realized that apart from other steps immediate steps are required to initiate proceedings against the Village Panchayat Officer, who has avoided the directions issued to him for furnishing the report to the Enquiry Officer and vide order dated 19.1.2011 the deponent has directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to initiate a departmental proceeding against the Village Panchayat Officer namely Mr. Dinesh Gupta. It was further directed that immediately to lodge a First Information Report against the Village Panchayat Officer, who has deliberately created hindrance in completion of the enquiry. A copy of the order of District Magistrate dated 19.1.2011 to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. 16. That the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur vide order dated 19.1.2011 has immediately suspended the Village Panchayat Officer, Malsil, District Jaunpur in contemplation of departmental enquiry. A copy of the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur suspending the petitioner is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. 17. That on 20.1.2011, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur has also directed the Additional Development Officer (Panchayat), Mariyahun, District Jaunpur to immediately lodge First Information Report against Dinesh Kumar Gupta, the Village Panchayat Officer, Malsil, District Jaunpur. A copy of the order dated 20.1.2011 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur is, being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit." 7. A copy of the order dated 20.1.2011 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur is, being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit." 7. In the Compliance Affidavit, sworn by Shesh Narain Dubey, Deputy Director of Agriculture respondent No. 5, it is, inter alia, averred that though there has been delay in completion of the enquiry, the same has been completed and Enquiry Report dated 18.1.2011 has been submitted to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur. 8. In the Counter-Affidavit, sworn by Ashok Kumar Srivastava, District Panchayat Raj Officer respondent No. 4, it is, inter alia, averred that there has been delay in completion of the enquiry but the same has been completed and the Enquiry Report dated 18.1.2011 has been submitted. 9. Subsequently, a Supplementary Counter-affidavit, sworn on 9.2.2012, has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. It is, inter alia, averred in the said Supplementary Affidavit that the enquiry has been completed and the order dated 6.2.2012 has been passed directing for suitable action in the matter, and that the representation of the petitioner has also been decided. 10. In view of the above, it is evident that the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition stand granted and no further orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Petition. 11. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition Disposed Of. _____________