Back
[2011(8) ADJ 468 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAHEED ARA MOONIS, JJ.
SANJEEV AGRAWAL .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition 16029 of 2011 and Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 157952 of 2011 decided on 25th August, 2011)
(B) U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916—Sections 48 (2), 48 (2A), 34 and 35—Removal—President of Nagar Palika Parishad—Proceedings for—District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner are statutory authorities and have various functions to perform—As such, contention that they do not have any role to play in proceedings for removal of President—Cannot be accepted—State Government, therefore, can issue notice for removal of President on basis of letters of these statutory authorities—Expression “reasons to believe” in Section 48(2) relates to formation of subjective satisfaction of State Government and clothe State Government to initiate proceedings under Section 48(2) for removal of President—State Government can take cognizance even ‘suo motu’ on any complaint submitted by any individual or any information received from District Magistrate or Divisional Commissioner—Powers of State Government are not hedged by any precondition. [Paras 22 and 23]
(C) U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916—Sections 48 (2) and 48 (2A)—Removal—President of Nagar Palika Parishad—On receipt of show-cause notice, Pradhan concerned requested State Government by letter for supply of material documents relating to charges against him—Only few documents were supplied to him—Record reveals that District Administration was still in process of sending other relevant documents, when order of removal of Pradhan concerned was passed—This fact clearly shows that principles of natural justice were violated, as Pradhan concerned was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing—Order of removal, thus, deserves to be set aside. [Paras 26 and 28]
(D) U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916—Sections 48 (2A) and 48 (2)—Enquiry —Required by Section 48 (2A)—Non holding of, before passing order of removal of President of Nagar Palika Parishad—Effect—Order of removal gets vitiated—Section 48(2A) obliges State Government to consider explanation of President concerned and make enquiry in entire matter before passing order of removal—In the instant case, no enquiry was made—President concerned was not supplied entire material—Order of removal was passed before such supply of entire materials, which prevented him to give detailed and proper reply—Plea that even if detailed reply could not be given, that would not affect final order of removal, as giving of entire materials would be only an empty and useless formality—Not accepted as observance of principles of natural justice is necessary—Moreover, in the instant case even enquiry too was not done—Order of removal—As such, quashed. [Paras 31 to 40]
Re : C.M. Impleadment Application No. 157952 of 2011.
By the Court.—This is an application filed by Prasant Johary and others praying for impleadment in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25th February, 2011 removing the petitioner from the office of the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahr. The applicants claim to be corporators of the Municipal Board. We have permitted the applicants to be heard in the writ petition under the Rules of the Court, however, no formal impleadment of the applicants is necessary.
3. The application is disposed of accordingly.
Decided Accordingly.
Re : C.M.W.P. No. 16029 of 2011.
Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Seema Agrawal for the petitioner and Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.M. Fazal has been heard on behalf of Prasant Johary and others who have filed application for impleadment in the writ petition.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, elected President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahr, has challenged the order dated 25th February, 2011 passed by the State Government removing the petitioner from the office of President exercising power under Section 48(2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
3. Affidavits between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
4. Brief facts, which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are; the petitioner was elected as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahr as a candidate by Bhartiya Janta Party on 7th November, 2006. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that at the instance of the ruling party he has been subjected to harassment by the district administration. It is submitted that at the instance of the district administration first information reports were lodged against him and his brothers. Criminal misc. writ petitions were filed in this Court and this Court granted interim orders staying the arrest of the petitioner. Allegations of mala fide were made against the district administration and police authorities in the aforesaid criminal misc. writ petitions which are matter of the record. The District Magistrate wrote letter dated 8th June, 2009 to the State Government recommending taking of action against the President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahr (Petitioner) referring certain complaints. The Divisional Commissioner vide his letter dated 12th August, 2009 also wrote to the State Government on the subject of proceeding of the Municipal Board dated 28th February, 2009 on complaint submitted by certain Corporators for removing the note put up by the President in the proceeding dated 28th February, 2009. The State Government referring to the letter dated 12th August, 2009 of the Divisional Commissioner and the letter dated 8th June, 2009 of the District Magistrate, issued a show-cause notice dated 7th September, 2009 to the petitioner under Section 48(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 to show-cause as to why the petitioner be not removed from the office of the President. Exercising the power under the U.P. Nagar Palika Amendment Act, 2005 and financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased till he is exonerated from the charges. The petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 55136 of 2009 challenging the show-cause notice dated 7th September, 2009. This Court passed an interim order on 28th October, 2009 staying the operation of the order dated 7th September, 2009 insofar as it takes away the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. It was, however, made clear that proceeding in pursuance of the show-cause notice may go on. A restraint was also put on the petitioner to the effect that petitioner shall not pass or sanction any payment exceedin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
