ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
HARI SWARUP, K.N. SINGH, JJ.
Rameshwar Das Mittal - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 5736 of 1972.
Decided On : 29-09-1972
JUDGMENT
K.N. Singh, J. - Municipal Board, Hapur, in district Meerut, is constituted of twenty-one members including the President. Rameshwar Das Mittal, the petitioner, was elected President of the Municipal Board, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in May, 1971. On 9th August, 1972 a written notice of motion of non-confidence against the petitioner signed by fifteen members of the Board together with a copy of the motion was delivered in person to the District Magistrate by two members of the Board, namely, Ved Prakash and Brij Mohan. In exercise of his powers under Sec. 87-A (3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, the District Magistrate convened a meeting of the Board for consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the Board on 11th September, 1972.
2. On 22nd August, 1972, six registered envelopes were received in the office of the District Magistrate, Meerut, containing six typed resignation letters from the membership of the Board purporting to have been signed by Khem Chand, Chidda Singh, Shahid Beg, Brij Mohan, Vijendra Kumar and Khushwant Rai, respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively to the petition. On the following day, namely, 23rd August, 1972, another three registered envelopes were received in the office of the District Magistrate containing three typed resignation letters from the membership of the Board purporting to have been signed by Rajendra Prasad, Magan Lal and Chokhey Lal, respondent nos. 10 to 12 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate forwarded the aforesaid nine resignation letters to the State Government for necessary action. Meanwhile, notices were issued by the District Magistrate to the members of the Board giving information about the time, date and place of the meeting convened for the purpose of consideration of the motion of non-confidence against the petitioner but no such notices were issued to respondent nos. 4 to 12 in view of their resignations from the membership of the Board. It appears that respondent nos. 4 to 12 came to know of the resignation letters and the action taken by the District Magistrate on 2nd September, 1972, five members of the Board, namely, Vijendra Kumar, Khushwant Rai, Chokhey Lal, Brij Mohan and Mogan Lal made an application before the District Magistrate denying their resignation letters. They asserted that they had never sent any resignation letter to the District Magistrate and that somebody interested in defeating the motion of non-confidence had committed forgery. They made a prayer for being allowed to take part in the meeting convened for considering the motion of non-confidence on 11th September, 1972. Each of the five persons namely Vijendra Kumar, Khushwant Rai, Chokhey Lal, Brij Mohan and Mogan Lal filed affidavits before the District Magistrate affirming that they had not sent any resignation to the District Magistrate from the membership of the Board and that they desired to continue as members of the Board. Similar application and affidavits were filed by the four other affected members of the Board, namely, Rajendra Prasad, Khem Chand, Shahid Beg and Chhidda Singh on 3rd September, 1972. The District Magistrate forwarded the affidavits of the aforesaid nine members to the State Government. By a letter dated 5th September, 1972, the State Government informed the District Magistrate that respondent nos. 4 to 12 who had denied to have sent the resignation letters, were entitled to continue as members and the affidavits filed by them prima facie indicated that their contention was correct. The State Government, therefore, directed that there was no vacancy in the membership on account of the said resignation letters. In pursuance of the letter of the State Government the District Magistrate treated respondent nos. 4 to 12 as members of the Board and issued notices requesting them to attend the meeting of 11th September, 1972. Intimation to that effect was given to the petitioner also who was the President of the Board.
3.
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.