JUDGMENT Hon’ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.—Heard Sri Suresh Pratap Singh, counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V.M. Zaidi, counsel for the caveator. 2. The petitioner is the elected Gram Pradhan elected in the elections held in 2015. Election Petition No. T-2016131601187 was filed under Section 12-C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1947’) challenging the election of the petitioner on grounds, amongst others, that the petitioner had not disclosed correctly and in full the details regarding criminal cases pending against him especially an order of externment passed against the petitioner. The aforesaid election petition is still pending before the Election Tribunal. However, a notice dated 24.6.2016 under Section 5-A(g) of the Act, 1947 was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy District Magistrate, District Bijnor seeking his reply to the charges stated in the aforesaid notice. The notice stated that the Deputy District Magistrate, Bijnor had been appointed as Enquiry Officer by the District Magistrate i.e. respondent No. 1. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice on 8.7.2016. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 9.9.2016/12.9.2016 was issued by the District Magistrate, Bijnor, i.e. respondent No. 1, to the petitioner stating that in his enquiry report, the Deputy District Magistrate had reported that criminal cases were pending against the petitioner and an externment order had been passed against him and the petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Section 5-A(g) of the Act, 1947. The petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notice dated 9.9.2016/12.9.2016 on 17.10.2016. The District Magistrate exercising his powers under Section 95(1)(g)(v) of the Act, 1947, vide his order dated 25.11.2016, removed the petitioner from the post of Gram Pradhan on the ground that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification as prescribed under Section 5-A(g) of the Act, 1947. The order dated 25.11.2016 was quashed by this Court by its order dated 7.12.2016 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57653 of 2016 on the ground that the District Magistrate could not exercise his powers under Section 95(1)(g)(v) of the Act, 1947 removing an elected Gram Pradhan without a decision by the Prescribed Authority, under Section 6-A to the effect that the Pradhan had incurred a disqualification specified in Section 5A of the Act, 1947. Writ Petition No. 57653 of 2016 on the ground that the District Magistrate could not exercise his powers under Section 95(1)(g)(v) of the Act, 1947 removing an elected Gram Pradhan without a decision by the Prescribed Authority, under Section 6-A to the effect that the Pradhan had incurred a disqualification specified in Section 5A of the Act, 1947. In its judgment and order dated 7.12.2016, this Court further held that proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947 were started by the District Magistrate on an enquiry report submitted by the Deputy District Magistrate who was appointed Enquiry Officer by the District Magistrate and the said enquiry could not be treated as a reference to the Prescribed Authority and the report cannot be treated as a declaration under Section 6-A of the Act, 1947. After the order dated 7.12.2016 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57653 of 2016, a show-cause notice dated 10.4.2017 was issued to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority/Deputy District Magistrate, Sadar, District Bijnor, i.e. respondent No. 2, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.4.2017. The Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 28.9.2017 under Section 95(1)(g)(v) of the Act, 1947 removing the petitioner from the post of Gram Pradhan on the ground that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification as prescribed under Section 5-A(g) of the Act, 1947 because seven criminal cases relating to offences involving moral turpitude were pending against the petitioner. In his order dated 28.9.2017, the Prescribed Authority had also referred to an order of externment passed against the petitioner under the U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Goonda Act’). The order dated 28.9.2017 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 28.9.2017 was without jurisdiction as under Section 6-A of the Act, 1947, the Prescribed Authority was empowered to merely declare an elected Gram Pradhan to have incurred a disqualification under Section 5A of the Act, 1947 and is not empowered to remove the elected Gram Prahdan from his post as the said power vests with the State Government under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947 and the State Government has delegated the said power to the District Magistrates. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that an order of externment under the Goonda Act is not a conviction and, therefore, the petitioner had not incurred any disqualification as prescribed under Section 5-A of the Act, 1947 and the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring him as disqualified under Section 5-A(g) of the Act, 1947 was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record. Rebutting the arguments of counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondents have argued that in view of notification No. 4193 K/33-664, dated July 27, 1996, the State Government had delegated its power under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrates and, therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 2 removing the petitioner from the post of Gram Pradhan was within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. It was also contended by the counsel for respondents that as an order of externment had been passed against the petitioner under the Goonda Act, therefore, it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. A perusal of the order dated 28.9.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 shows that in his aforesaid order, the Prescribed Authority has exercised the powers vested in the State Government under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947 empowering the State Government to remove a Gram Pradhan on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-clauses of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947. Before proceeding to consider whether the order dated 28.9.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 was without jurisdiction, it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 5-A, 6-A and 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947: 5-A. Disqualification of membership.—A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, [the Pradhan or] a member of a Gram Panchayat, if he- (a) is so disqualified by or under any law for the time bring in force for the purposes of elections of the State Legislature: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years; (b) is a salaried servant of the Gram Panchayat of a Nyaya Panchayat; (c) holds any office of profit under a State Government of the Central Government or a [local authority, other than a Gram Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat; or a Board, Body or Corporation owned or controlled by a State Government or the Central Government;] (d) has been dismissed from the service of State Government, the Central Government or a local authority or a Nyaya Panchayat for misconduct; (e) is in arrears of any tax, fee, rate or any other dues payable by him to the Gram Panchayat, Kshettra Panchayat or Zila Panchayat for such period as may be prescribed, or has, in spite of being required to do so by the Gram Panchayat, Nyaya Panchayat, Kshettra Panchayat or Zila Panchayat failed to deliver to it any record or property belonging to it which had come into his possession by virtue of his holding any office under it; (f) [is an undischarged insolvent; (g) has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; (h) has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months for contravention of any order made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; (i) has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months or to transportation for contravention of any order made under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 or the U.P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1947; (j) has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910; (k) has been convicted of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (l) has been convicted of an election offence; (m) has been convicted of an offence under the U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947 or the Protection of Civil Rights, 1955; or (n) has been removed from office under sub-clauses (iii) or (iv) of Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 unless such period, as has been provided in that behalf in the said section or such lesser period as the State Government may have ordered in any particular case, has elapsed: Provided that the period of disqualification under Clauses (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), or (m) shall be five years from such date as may be prescribed: Provided further that the disqualification under clause (e) shall cease upon payment of arrears or delivery of the record of property, as the case may be: Provided also that a disqualification under any of the clauses referred to in the first proviso may in the manner prescribed, be removed by the State Government. 6-A. Decision on question as to disqualifications.—If any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 5-A or in sub-section (1) of Section 6, the question shall be referred to the prescribed authority for his decision and his decision shall, subject to the result of any appeal as may be prescribed, be final. 95 (1)(g). - [remove a Pradhan, [Up-Pradhan] or member of a Gram Panchayat] [* * *] or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he]- (i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings. (ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, (iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by this Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or [(iii-a) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or sub-section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of Schedule Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the backward classes, as the case may be.] (iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or (v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A: [Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or [Up-Pradhan] is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan [or Up-Pradhan] shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.] [(gg) [* * *]; [(h) [* * *]: [Provided that - (i) No action shall be taken under Clause (f), Clause (g) [* * *] except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed]; (ii) [* * *] 6. A reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that under Section 6-A, the Prescribed Authority has the jurisdiction to decide any question as to whether a person had become subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 5-A or 6-A(1) of the Act, 1947 and the reference to the Prescribed Authority is limited to the aforesaid extent. After the decision of the Prescribed Authority on the said reference and after the Prescribed Authority decides that the concerned person had incurred a disqualification as prescribed in Section 5-A or 6(1) of the Act, 1947, the power to remove the said person from the post of Gram Pradhan had to be exercised by the State Government and the Prescribed Authority is not empowered to exercise the power of removal vested in the State Government under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947. 7. It was argued by counsel for the respondents that under the notification dated 27th July, 1996, the State Government had delegated its power under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947 to the Deputy District Magistrates and therefore the order dated 28.9.2017 was within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. 8. The aforesaid argument of the counsel for respondents cannot be accepted. Notification No. 4193 K/33-664, dated 27th July, 1996 was superseded by Notification No. 1684/XXXIII-1-1997-123-97, dated 30th April, 1997 and the powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, 1947 which vest in the State Government were delegated to the concerned District Magistrates. Thus, it is only the District Magistrate i.e. respondent No. 1 who had the jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 95(1)(g)(v) of the Act, 1947 removing the petitioner from his post of Gram Pradhan and the Prescribed Authority/Deputy District Magistrate, i.e. respondent No. 2, was not empowered to exercise the power of removal on behalf of the State Government. The order dated 28.9.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 is evidently without jurisdiction. 9. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.9.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 also shows that the Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification under Section 5-A(g) as seven criminal cases relating to offences involving moral turpitude were pending against him. 9. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.9.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 also shows that the Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification under Section 5-A(g) as seven criminal cases relating to offences involving moral turpitude were pending against him. A reading of Section 5-A(g) shows that it assumes conviction of the Gram Pradhan and mere pendency of criminal cases against him is not sufficient to pronounce a Gram Pradhan disqualified under Section 5-A(g) so as to occasion exercise of power of removal under Section 95(1)(g)(v). The Prescribed Authority/respondent No. 2 has clearly erred in holding that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification as stipulated in Section 5-A(g). Whether the petitioner had incurred the disqualification prescribed in Section 5-A(g) because of the externment order passed against him under the Goonda Act is not necessary for a decision of the writ petition as, even though in order dated 28.9.2017, there are references by the Prescribed Authority to the externment order passed against the petitioner but the same has not been stated as a ground by the Prescribed Authority to hold that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification prescribed under Section 5-A(g). A reading of the impugned order reveals that the Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification under Section 5-A(g) because seven criminal cases relating to offences involving moral turpitude were pending against the petitioner. 10. In view of the reasons given above, the order dated 28.9.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law and is thus liable to be set-aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.9.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bijnor is, hereby, set-aside.