1. The principles of natural justice require that a person facing adverse administrative action be given an opportunity to respond to the material relied upon against them. 2. Statutory provisions requiring the recording of reasons for administrative decisions must be strictly complied with.

D. S. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel of the petitioner. Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. , representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 9, at length and in detail.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 27th January, 1999. passed by the State Government, the respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is Annexure-6 to the petition. The impugned order, which has been passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. (hereinafter called the act), purports to remove the petitioner from the office of Chairman. Nagar Panchayat, Bhatparrani in the district of Deoria.

( 3 ) TAKING cognizance of certain complaints received by it, the respondent No. 1 formed an opinion that during the performance of his duties as Chairman, the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Act warranting action under Section 48 of the Act. It, therefore, issued notice dated 25th October, 1997 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from his office. The notice was served on the petitioner on 13th November. 1997, which was duly received by the petitioner on 20th November, 1997. From the pleadings of the parties before the Court, it transpires that subsequent to the filing of reply by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Deoria, the respondent No. 2 sent comments on the reply of the petitioner. These comments are before the Court as Annexure-CA-II, appended to the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Rajesh Kumar Rai, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Salempur, Deoria, the respondent No. 3, filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 passed the impugned order dated 27th January. 1999.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law on following two counts (a) that the impugned order is founded on material, namely, the report of the respondent No. 3 and the comments of respondent No. 2, which was not disclosed to the petitioner. This was in violation of the principles of natural Justice resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner ; and (b) that the impugned order does not disclose reasons.

( 5 ) COUNTERING the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner, learned counsel representing the respondents submit that the material relied upon by the respondent No. 1 for passing the impugned order was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the submission that the impugned order is founded on undisclosed material cannot be sustained. Regarding the second ground of attack, namely, lack of reasons, the learned counsels contend that the respondent No. 1 was not required to give reasons.

( 6 ) IN paragraph 12 of the petition, it is asserted that the respondent No. 3 submitted a report and the respondent No. 2 submitted his note (Samiksha ). But, neither the copy of the report of the respondent No. 3 nor the copy of the note (Samiksha) submitted by the respondent No. 2 was supplied to the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the petition, it is asserted that after the respondent no. 2 had sent his note (Samiksha), no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1.

( 7 ) THE averments of the petitioner made in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the petition have been replied In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The said paragraph is as follows :

" 14. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 12, 13, 14 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was given full opportunity to submit his reply against the charges framed and to submit evidence in support of his case and after having received reply of the petitioner, the same was sent to the State Government along with the comm