JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a duly elected Pradhan of Village Nidura, Block Jaisinghpur,k District Sultanpur and has been holding the office since 2021. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to repeated frivolous complaints made against the petitioner by one Kapil Muni. It has been submitted that the first complaint was made against the petitioner on 15.6.2024 which was made on Sampurna Samadhan Divas. It is stated that the said complaint was with regard to a pond situated at gata No.485/0.708 hectare which has been made stating that the petitioner by playing fraud has misappropriated the fund and subsequently allegations have been made for selling the same illegally. Inquiry was conducted by Block Development Officer on 31.7.2024 and he held that he could not find any merit in the allegations in the complaint which could not, therefore, be verified. 3. The second compliant was made on 24.6.2024 which was addressed to the District Magistrate and it seems that the said letter was endorsed to Chief Development Officer and in the second complaint also inquiry was conducted by Block Development Officer, who submitted report on 25.6.2024 recording a finding that the facts in the complaint could not be verified. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that though the complaints made on Sampurna Samadhan Divas was prior to to the complaint made to the District Magistrate who had directed inquiry be conducted by Khand Vikas Adhikari who submitted report prior to the inquiry conducted by Gram Vikas Adhikari. It is also been submitted that it is on the basis of the aforesaid complaint that the District Magistrate has proceeded under the provisions of Section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and directed the District Social Welfare Officer to conduct inquiry into the complaint made by Kapil Muni and accordingly in the present writ petition has been filed in which prayer has been made to quash the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.7.2024 wherein he has directed for conducting inquiry under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is illegal and arbitrary in as much as there is no material on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed considering the fact that for the same allegations two inquires have been previously conducted by Village Development Officer as well as Block Development Officer and in both the inquiries the complaint was found to be false and frivolous. 5. Learned Standing counsel, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that by means of the impugned order the District Magistrate has only directed to conduct inquiry into the allegations made by the complainant, namely Kapil Muni. He submits that it is only a fact finding inquiry and the petitioner cannot be said to be adversely affected by the said inquiry. In case in the inquiry any matterial is found linking to the petitioner to the irregularities committed with regard to the said pond, then appropriate charge sheet would be issued to the petitioner then he will have full opportunity to defend himself in the said inquiry and all these grounds will be available to him during the said inquiry and accordingly, there is no ground for interference in the impugned order as prayed by the petitioner. 6. I have heard the rival contentions. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the complainant has been making complaints with regard to the pond situated at Village-Nidura, Block Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur before various authorities firstly at the village level and then at District Level. It seems that at the village level report was filed on 31.7.2024 and at the block level the Block Development Officer also conducted inquiry on 25.6.20224. It is noticed that both the inquiries do not relate to the proceedings under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947 and the District Magistrate on going through the aforesaid complaints has thought it proper to get the matter inquired for which purposes by means of the order dated 26.7.2024 he directed the matter to be inquired by District Social Welfare Officer. Considering the fact that the matter is only at preliminary stage where the District Magistrate has directed the inquiry to be conducted under Section 95 (1) (g) and a preliminary inquiry is sought to be conducted so as to ascertain the facts alleged in the complaint, it cannot be said that the petitioner is adversely affected at this stage. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that whenever there are allegations of defalcation or misappropriation of the State fund, it is the bounden duty of the authorities concerned to immediately look into the complaint at the earliest to test the veracity of the said complaint. At this stage, no right of any individual is affected and only limited inquiry is conducted to verify the facts as mentioned in the complaint. It is only when the allegations is fount to be prima facie true then the proceedings can be initiated for taking action against the person responsible for defalcation of fund or misappropriation of State fund for which purposes due inquiry is to be conducted and in the present case, detailed procedure has also been prescribed under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947 9. May be in case, two other inquiries by two other authorities have independently been conducted they would not have any bearing in the present inquiry to be conducted under Section 95 (1) (g) where District Magistrate will have to consider the reports as submitted by District Social Welfare Officer and in case he finds that there is some material fact he shall proceed further in the matter and in case the allegations in the complaint are not verified then he would be at liberty to drop the proceedings. At this preliminary stage, the Court cannot interfere on the ground that preliminary inquiry is sought to be conducted and previously also other authorities have conducted two other inquiries. 10. In any view of the matter District Magistrate is bound by the statutory provisions under Section 95 (1) (g) where there is no prescription of taking into account of the said inquiries submitted by other authorizes. 11. 10. In any view of the matter District Magistrate is bound by the statutory provisions under Section 95 (1) (g) where there is no prescription of taking into account of the said inquiries submitted by other authorizes. 11. In proceedings under the said Sections the petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself and in case it is found that there is prima facie substance in the complaint made by the complainant for which purposes the District Magistrate will be bound by the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1947 and it is only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner that he would proceed further in the matter and when that stage is reached the petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself and adduce all the material available whit him before the authorities. 12. In light of the above, no interference is called for by this Court. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.