By the Court.—This Writ Petition has been made for quashing the show cause notice dated 13.9.2007 and the consequential order dated 15.9.2007. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that the writ petition has been made challenging the show cause notice which has been issued by the State authorities in accordance with the appropriate law. It is well-settled by now that in case only issuance of show cause notice is challenged, Court should not interfere generally because the petitioner has an ample opportunity to file his reply and explain his case before the State authority by whom the show cause notice has been issued.

2. In the instant case, Sri Ravi Kant and Sri S.M.A. Qazmi, learned senior Counsels duly assisted by Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned Counsel appeared in support of the writ petition and contended before the Court that the show cause notice is mala fide in nature and without jurisdiction, therefore, show cause notice can be challenged. The action on the part of the authority is vindictive in nature.

3. We have gone through the documents annexed in the writ petition as well as in the supplementary affidavits and found that the levelling of charges on the part of the State authorities cannot be held to be mala fide. There is a reason for saying so. Various charges were levelled against the petitioner when the State authority made an enquiry. The State authority has found that some of the charges cannot be levelled against the petitioner since those are not backed by any evidence. Thereafter only for remaining charges, show cause notice had been issued on 13.9.2007. Had it been the case of mala fide, all other charges could have been levelled against the petitioner. There was no occasion for exonerating the petitioner from such other charges.

4. Mr. Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel contended before the Court that the allegations which are made has to be based on subjective satisfaction of Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. There must be reason to believe that the charges which reflect from the show cause notice can be taken into account for the purpose of due consideration. Under the order impugned herein, Section 48 (2) (a), (b) clauses (vi), (xi), (xii) and proviso have been referred. Section 48 (1) and (2) are as under :

“48. Removal of President.—(1) [...]

(2) Where the State Government has, at any time, reason to believe that,—

(a) there has been a failure on the part of the President in performing his duties; or

(b) the President has—

(i) incurred any disqualification mentioned in Section 12-D and 43 AA; or

(ii) within the meaning of Section 82 knowingly acquired or continued to have directly or indirectly or by a partner, any share or interest, whether pecuniary or any of other nature, in any contract or employment with by or on behalf of the [Municipality]; or

(iii) knowingly acted as a President or as a President or a member in a matter other than a matter referred to in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 32, in which he has, directly or indirectly, or by a partner, any share or interest whether pecuniary or of any other nature, or in which he has professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; or

(iv) being a legal practitioner acted or appeared in any suit or other proceeding on behalf of any person against the [Municipality] or against the State Government in respect of nazul land entrusted to the management of the [Municipality] or against the State Government in respect of nazul land entrusted to the management of the [Municipality] or acted or appeared for or on behalf of any person against whom a criminal proceeding has been instituted by or on behalf of the [Municipality]; or

(v) abandoned his ordinary place of residence in the municipal area concerned; or

(vi) been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or

[(vii) during the current or the last proceedings term of the [Municipality], acting as President or Vice-President, or as