The impugned order must provide proper reasoning, consider the petitioner's explanation, and adhere to principles of natural justice. The State Government must conduct an independent enquiry before taking action.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 12. 12. 2001, Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been removed by the State Government from the office of the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, Bulandshahr under Section 48 (2) (a)/ (b) of the U. P. Municipalities Act.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was elected as Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, Bulandshahr in the election held in November, 2000 and her result was declared on 26. 11. 2000 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner took oath of the office on 2. 11. 2000 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that an agenda was circulated by the Executive officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, on 4. 12. 2000 for convening the meeting of the municipal Board on 11. 12. 2000 in which 24 members of the Board including the petitioner were present. Two members of the Board were absent. In this meeting various resolutions were passed vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The minutes of the meeting dated 11. 12. 2000 were published in the newspaper dainik Diksha, Bulandshahr, on 14. 12. 2000 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting held on 11. 12. 2000 was also sent to the district Magistrate, Bulandshahr, vide letter dated 16. 12. 2000, Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) AFTER a period of about six months from the above meeting, it appears that a complaint was made by certain members of the Board to the State Government through the Commissioner, meerut, vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In pursuance of this complaint, the Chief development Officer, Bulandshahr, by letter dated 14. 6. 2001 asked the President/executive officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad to produce the record of the meeting dated 14. 12. 2000 by 15. 6. 2001. True copy of the said letter is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the said letter written by the Chief Development Officer, Bulandshahr, requisite records were furnished by the Board on 15. 6. 2001 along with the letter dated 15. 6. 2001 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The Chief Development Officer submitted a report dated 27. 6. 2001 vide annexure-11 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 Chief Development Officer, Bulandshahr, did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner and also did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before submitting the report dated 27. 6. 2001 and the entire enquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner. It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the said report dated 27. 6. 2001 is ex parte and has been manufactured at the instance of the rival group. It is alleged that the allegations in the report are totally false and incorrect and the report was prepared in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 6 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that in the meeting held on 11. 12. 2000 thirty-nine resolutions were passed. When the complaint was made by the members of Municipal board thereafter, no resolution was acted upon nor any work done nor any expenses were incurred and there was no loss or Injury caused to the Board. Only resolution No. 1 was acted upon. At any event, the Commissioner, Meerut. passed an order on 20. 7. 2001 keeping in abeyance the resolution passed in the meeting dated 11. 12. 2000 by the Board. True copy of the order dated 20. 7. 2001 is Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

( 7 ) IN paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it is stated that on 20. 7. 2001 the respondent No. 2 also issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 35 of the Act granting fifteen days time to file a reply. However, it is alleged in paragraph 22 of the writ petition that before fifteen days expired, the matter was sent to the State Government to take action against the peti