By the Court.—The petitioner, who is elected Chairman/President of Nagar Panchayat Sahatwar, Distrit Ballia (hereinafter referred to as ‘Municipal Board’) has challenged the order dated 27th March, 2008, passed by respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-’8 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why for the charges mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice she be not removed from the office of the Chairman/President of the ‘Municipal Board’ as contemplated under Section 48 (2) of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner is asked to submit reply within a period of one fortnight from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the petitioner shall be removed from the office of the Chairman/President of the ‘Municipal Board. The petitioner was also served with an order dated 29th March, 2008, passed by respondent No. 3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-’9 to the writ petition, whereby the respondent No. 3 has directed that pending finalization of the proceedings under Section 48 of ‘the Act’ with regard to the show cause notice, the administrative powers of the office of the Chairman/President shall be exercised by Sri M.P. Saroj, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bansdih. It is these two orders, which are challenged by the petitioner by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 48 of U.P. Municipality Act, 1916, which reads thus :

“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 of the disqualifications mentioned in Sections 12-D and 43-AA;

(ii) knowingly acted as a President or as 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 was professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; or

(iii) 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 of any other nature, in any contract or employment with, by or on behalf of the [Municipality]; or

(iv) to (xvii) ......................................................

It may call upon him to show cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from office :

Provided that where the State Government has reason to believe that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima facie guilty on any of the grounds of this sub-section resulting in the issuance of the show-cause notice and proceedings under this sub-section he shall, from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice containing charges, cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice issued to him under this sub-section and finalization of the proceedings under sub-section (2-A) and the said powers, functions and duties of the President during the period of such ceasing, shall be exercised, performed and discharged by the District Magistrate or an officer nominated by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector.”

3. So far as the show cause notice dated 27th March, 2008 is concerned, by the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why she should not be removed from the office of Chairman/President of the ‘Municipal Board’, therefore we are of the opinion that at this stage, since the petitioner has only been asked to show cause