IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 787 of 2010 Rais Ahmad S/O Sri Maqsood Ahmad R/O Village Dada Jalalpur, Block Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and four others … Respondents. Mr. C.K.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4. Date May 21, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 3867 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate order against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 as provided under Section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It appears that the petitioner and other villagers made a complaint against the respondent no. 4 and 5 and on the basis of the complaint, an enquiry was ordered by the Chief Development Officer Haridwar. Consequently, enquiry report was submitted to the respondent no. 2, who by his order dated 23-4-2010 issued a show cause notice to the respondent no. 4 and 5 to show cause why their financial and administrative powers be not ceased. The District Magistrate Haridwar had given 15 days’ time to file reply of the show cause notice to respondent no. 5-Gram Pradhan by his order dated 23-4-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Magistrate was required to cease the financial powers of the respondent no.5-Gram Pradhan soon after the receipt of the enquiry report. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate has not adhered to the provisions of the U.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law for the simple reason that before depriving the Pradhan of exercising his/her financial and administrative powers, reasonable opportunity of showing cause is mandatory. The relevant provision, i.e. Proviso first and second appended to Section 95(1) (g) (v) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 reads as under:- “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. 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;” The present writ petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3