ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GOPALJI MEHROTRA, J.
Lakshmi Chandra Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
State of UP & Ors. - Respondents
Civ. Miscellaneous Writ No. 1588 of 1957
Decided On : 14-10-1957
JUDGMENT
Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - The petitioner was appointed Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Hapur, in December 1931. In October 1953 the new Board was elected and Sri Tara Chand Modi, opposite party No. 3, was elected President of the Board. On 7th November a vote of no confidence was passed against him. Under the orders of this Court the operation of the order was stayed as the proceedings of the meeting were challenged by means of a writ petition by Sri Tara Chand Modi. On 19-2-1957 a letter was sent by the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Meerut, to the Petitioner that the President should be deemed to be incapacitated from functioning as a President and u/s 47A of the Municipalities Act the Vice President should look after the affairs of the Board. The Senior Vice President, Sri Abdul Rashid started functioning though Sri Tara Chand Modi, opposite party No. 3, continued to assert his right to function as as the President of the Board. On 24-3-1957 Sri Abdul Rashid, the Senior Vice President resigned from his office. The State Government by letter dated 27-4-1957 in the exercise of its powers u/s 47A(2) of the Municipalities Act removed Sri Tara Chand Modi from the office of the President of the Municipal Board with effect from 29-4-1957. On 3-5-1957 Sri Tara Chand Modi filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the State Government removing him from the office of the President. It should also be pointed out that the petition filed by Sri Tara Chand Modi challenging the validity of the resolution of 7-11-1956 was ultimately dismissed by this Court and the order of Hon'ble Single Judge was confirmed in Special Appeal by a Bench. The prayer for the interim relief in the second writ petition filed by Sri Tara Chand Modi challenging the order of the removal by the State Government was rejected on 8-5-1957. On 4-5-1957 Shri Mahesh Chandra, opposite party No. 4, was, however, elected Vice President by the Board by a Special resolution and according to the Petitioner, provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 54A were not complied with in the election of Shri Mahesh Chandra. On 24-5-1957 an application was made by Shri Tara Chand Modi for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of this Court refusing interim relief to him. On 3-6-1957 the application for interim relief in the application for special leave was heard and operation of the removal order of the State Government dated 27-4-1957 was stayed. After the stay order had been granted by the Supreme Court Shri Tara Chand Modi asserted his right to function as president of the Board. On 9-6-57 the Petitioner applied for a week's leave with effect from 10-6-57 which was granted. The Medical Officer of Health was asked to officiate as Executive Officer during his absence. On 11-6-57 Shri Mahesh Chandra, however, cancelled the order regarding the Medical Officer of Health to Officiate in the absence of the Petitioner and directed the Head Clerk" of the Board, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goel who, according to the Petitioner, was related to the opposite party No. 4, to officiate in the absence of the Petitioner. On a representation made by the Health Officer the District Magistrate directed the Vice Chairman to remove the Head Clerk and entrust the work of the Executive Officer to some other responsible officer. Thereupon opposite party No. 4 asked the Tax Superintendent, suspended by Shri Tara Chand Modi, to officiate in place of the Petitioner. On 18-6-1957 the Petitioner applied for a week's leave on the ground of health and on the same date opposite party No. 4 passed an order framing charges against the Petitioner u/s 69A (1) of the Municipalities Act and placing him under suspension. The said order was served on the Petitioner on 21-6-1957. On 19-6-1957 the telephonic connection sanctioned by the Board at the official residence of the Petitioner was disconnected under the orders of opposite party No. 4. The Petitioner was threatened to vacate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.