JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek Mishra, for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi learned Additional Advocate General, for the State Respondent, Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Nipun Singh, for Intervenor and Shri Atul Tej Kulshrestha, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.10.2022 by which she has been removed from the office of President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar. The order has been passed by respondent no. 1 in exercise of power under section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Initially, an order was passed on 19.07.2022 ceasing the financial power of the petitioner, pending inquiry in relation to charges of irregularities in award of contract, defalcation of accounts, failure to perform duties attached to her post and causing damage to the property of municipality. The said order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in Writ (C) No. 24233 of 2022 on the ground that the explanations submitted by her on 2.5.2022 and 8.7.2022 in response to show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 were not considered. During course of hearing of the said writ petition, a statement was made on behalf of the State respondents that the reply submitted by the petitioner on 08.07.2022 had been received on 21.07.2022, after passing of the order impugned in the writ petition. The submission on behalf of the petitioner was that the order ceasing her financial power did not consider even the reply submitted by her on 02.05.2022 and there was no independent application of mind to the material available on record. The writ petition was decided by order dated 2.9.2022. The order impugned was quashed with liberty to respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. While giving the aforesaid liberty, it was clarified that respondent no. 1 shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner on 02.05.2022 as well as the reply dated 08.07.2022, which had concededly been received by that time.

4. On 23rd September, 2022, a notice was issued to the petitioner requiring her to remain present on 26.09.2022 for personal hearing before respondent no. 1. The petitioner appeared on that date and submitted a written note and requested that copies of the comments/reports obtained by respondent no. 1 from the District Magistrate in response to her reply be made available to her to enable her to rebut the same. It is her specific case that on that date, no hearing took place. The petitioner has also specifically alleged that the State Government did not supply copy of the report of the District Magistrate dated 19.09.2022 to her, despite written request made by her and proceeded to pass the impugned order removing her from the office of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar. The submissions made by Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are recorded in our order dated 22.11.2022, which is as follows:

“Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order directing removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairperson, Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffarnagar is ex-facie illegal inasmuch as: (a) no enquiry has been held, (b) there is no independent application of mind by the State Government to the explanation submitted by the petitioner and (c) the report obtained from the District Magistrate dated 19.9.2022 has been blindly relied upon without providing its copy to the petitioner.”

5. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General has received instructions from the State respondents. He admits that report of the District Magistrate dated 19.09.2022 was not made available to the petitioner. He places reliance on Para-19 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner never requested for copy of the said report