The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with Section 48(2-A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act in the process of removing a President from office.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by Nasimuddin, who was elected Chairman of Nagar Palika. Chandpur, Bijnore, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 22. 7. 1999 and 9. 9. 1999, passed by the government of U. P. and the District Magistrate. Bijnore respectively. Another writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as adhyaksh. Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandpur, District Bijnore has been sought.

( 2 ) THE matrix of the petitioners case is that he was elected as Chairman of Chandpur Nagar palika Parishad and took oath of his office on 1. 12. 1995. He discharged his duty satisfactorily for more than two years. However, in March, 1998, the District Magistrate, Bijnore directed the additional District Magistrate (Finance) to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on an unsigned and undated complaint. Under the pressure of the political heavy weights, the enquiry officer initiated enquiry proceedings without informing the petitioner and he conducte and concluded the entire proceedings behind his back without giving any opportunity of being heard. A show cause notice of March 27, 1999 was served upon the petitioner calling for his explanation regarding the allegations levelled against him. The copy of the enquiry effort was not enclosed with the show cause notice. The petitioner then intimated the Secretary, Nagar Vikas that the documents relied upon in the show caused notice had not been furnished to him and therefore, it was not possible to submit his reply to the show, cause notice. A request for supply of all such documents along with a copy of the enquiry report was pressed into service but the District magistrate asked the petitioner to obtain copies of the relevant documents from the judicial record-room on payment of copying fee. However, under instructions of the Government, the district Magistrate issued a letter dated May 25, 1999 and supplied asking with it a few documents. In the process, the petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 5. 6. 1999, asserting therein that the charges levelled against him were vague, baseless and politically motivated. The District Magistrate forwarded the petitioners reply to the Government with his comments. The District Magistrate had proceeded on the basis of the ex parte enquiry report and acted with bias and prejudiced against the petitioner. His interpretation of legal proceedings was unjust and uncalled for. He had wrongly suggested the Government about the punishment being imposed upon the petitioner. On the recommendation of the District Magistrate, the Government removed the petitioner from the office. The impugned order of dismissal is unreasonable and arbitrary as it has been passed by the Government without application of mind. No impartial enquiry was conducted after an explanation having been called from the petitioner nor the latter was allowed to participate in the enquiry and in this way, the entire process of the petitioners removal was against the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, as pleaded by the petitioner the impugned removal order deserves to be quashed.

( 3 ) THE opposite parties filed their response asserting therein that on report of same complaints against the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated and the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and revenue) was appointed as enquiry officer to hold the enquiry. After conducting and concluding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report. After scrutiny of the enquiry report, the petitioner was called for to explain the charges levelled against him. A show cause notice to this effect was served upon him. Necessary documents were also supplied to the petitioner, as demanded by him. The District Magistrate submitted the petitioners reply along with his comments to the State Government. Upon further examinati