By the Court.—The petitioner-Nagar Palika Parishad is an elected body constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). By order dated 19.6.2010 passed by Additional District Magistrate (respondent No. 3), the Executive Officer of the Parishad has been directed to stop all payments regarding the contracts for the construction work given by the Nagar Palika Parishad during the pendency of enquiry instituted by the District Magistrate. Then by order dated 26.7.2010, the Additional District Magistrate has issued directions to the Executive Officer of the Parishad, Chandpur to the effect that the resolutions passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad in its meeting on 21.7.2010 be not given effect to. Again by order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, the Nagar Palika Parishad has been restrained from auctioning the shops for certain areas as specified in the said order. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 19.6.2010, 26.7.2010 and 29.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, this writ petition has been filed.

2. We have heard Sri Suneet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri A.K. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-Nagar Palika Parishad is an independent autonomous body and the Additional District Magistrate has no authority in law to interfere with the working of the Nagar Palika Parishad. It is submitted that it is only in circumstances enumerated under Section 34 of the Act that the District Magistrate can interfere and in the present case, the said circumstances do not exist and as such, the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate (respondent No. 3) are wholly without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.

4. It is contended that under the Constitution of India, the powers, authority and responsibilities of municipalities have been defined in Article 243W. Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution provides for such duties, which are to be performed by the municipalities. It is submitted that the petitioner-Nagar Palika Parishad has been performing its duties, which are required to be performed and the Additional District Magistrate, by passing the impugned orders, is not permitting the petitioner to perform such duties, which it is obliged in law to perform. It is also contended that vide communication dated 28.4.1997 issued by the State Government to all the District Magistrates, the State Government has directed that except in very special circumstances, the district authorities should not interfere with the day to day functioning of an elected Nagar Palika Parishad.

5. Sri A.K. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, states that the said impugned orders have been passed by the Additional District Magistrate on account of the fact that the State Government has been funding the projects, which the Nagar Palika Parishad is to execute and since the same were not being properly executed, the Additional District Magistrate had the power to stop payment of the contracts given by the Nagar Palika Parishad and also to stop the execution of the resolutions passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad. He further states that such powers have been exercised under Section 34 of the Act and as such, the passing of the said impugned orders is fully justified.

6. Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 is quoted below:

“34. Power of the State Government or the Prescribed Authority or the District Magistrate to prohibit execution or further execution of resolution or order of Municipality.—(1) The Prescribed Authority may, by order in writing, prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolut