B. S. CHAUHAN AND UMESHWAR PANDEY, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29th June, 2004 (Annexure 11)by which the petitioner, the President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Etawah, has been deprived of his financial and administrative powers in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 48 [2-K (a)] of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter called the Act, 1916), as amended by the Amendment Act VI of 2004.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been elected as the president of Nagar Palika Parishad, Etawah for a period of five years. There were certain allegations against the petitioner for which preliminary enquiry was conducted and, prima facie, the allegations have been found to have some substance. As the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner, he has been deprived of the administrative and financial powers by the impugned order. Hence this petition.

( 3 ) SHRI B. P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised large number of issues including the competence of the District Collector to pass the order dated 29th June, 2004 depriving the petitioner from exercising administrative and financial powers and further appointing the Additional District Magistrate (Fandr), Etawah to exercise the same. It is submitted by Shri Singh that it is the State Government which can deprive the petitioner of such powers and order being passed by the District Collector, is without jurisdiction and, therefore, nullity. Secondly, allegations of mala fide have been made against the respondent No. 5, the then district Collector and Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad; Etawah, who have also been impleaded as respondents by name, it is submitted by Shri singh that petitioner became victim of malicious intentions of said respondent Nos. 5 and 6, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that once the allegations are found to have some substance in preliminary enquiry and charge-sheet is served upon the office bearer, he is deprived of performing/discharging the financial and administrative powers automatically by operation of law which came into force by U. P. Act No. 6 of 2004 amending the provision of Section 48 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Thus, petitioner has not been deprived of such powers by the order passed by the District Collector. More so, the allegations had been of the period prior to the posting of respondents No. 5 and 6, therefore, the allegations of mala fide cannot be alleged against them, as they cannot be related to the said incidence. Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE amended provision, as referred to above, in Section 48 of the Act, 1916 reads as under :

" (2-A) Where in an inquiry and by such persons in such manner as may be prescribed, if a president or Vice President, prima facie, found to be guilty to any of the grounds referred to in sub-section (2), he shall cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President or the Vice President as the case may be, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice issued to him under sub-section (2), be evoked and performed by the District Magistrate or by an officer nominated by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector. STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (U. P. Act No. 2 of 1916) provides for removal of President of a municipality. In the said section the State Government is empowered to issue show cause notice to the guilty President on the grounds mentioned under Section 48, before removing him from his office. Most" of the Presidents used to d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document