ORDER :

1. Though the writ petition, out of which this reference to a Full Bench has arisen, has outlived its purpose and the cause of action therein does not survive, the question referred is one of general public importance and is, in our opinion, still required to be answered.

2. Since no one appeared for the writ petitioner, we requested Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Senior Advocate on January 23, 2023 to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the State.

3. The Division Bench, in this writ petition, finding itself in disagreement with the principles of law laid down regarding the scope and extent of inquiry to be undertaken under Section 48(2-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 in Dr. Shamim Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2005 (1) AWC 963, has referred the following question for consideration by a Larger Bench:

“Whether, notwithstanding the words ‘such enquiry as it may consider necessary’ used in section 48(2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the State Government is obliged to hold a full fledged enquiry in every case where the State Government does not agree with the explanation of the President.”

4. At the outset, we were rather baffled to find that in all publications of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 48 was shown to be omitted by U.P. Act No. 2 of 2005. Now, U.P. Act No. 2 of 2005 was given retrospective effect and directed to have come into force on February 27, 2004. It transpired during the course of hearing that Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 48 was a provision that was erroneously numbered while enacting U.P. Act No. 6 of 2004; erroneously because there was already a Sub-Section (2-A) on the Statute Book introduced vide U.P. Act No. 27 of 1964. Therefore, Sub-Section (2-A), that was inserted by U.P. Act No. 6 of 2004 to the existing provisions of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 was omitted by U.P. Act No. 2 of 2005 together with consequential amendments. In this case, what we are concerned with is Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, as introduced in the provisions of the parent Statute, to wit, the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short ‘the Act of 1916’) vide U.P. Act No. 27 of 1964. Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 48 in its existing form reads:

“(2-A) After considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from his office.”

5. The grounds, on which the action for removal of the President of a Municipality can be taken by the State Government, are spelt out by various clauses of Sub-Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act of 1916. The procedure to be adopted at the inquiry for the removal of the President of a Municipality is envisaged under Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 48. The issue that has made the Division Bench to make a reference to a Larger Bench in this case is the import of the words “making such inquiry as it may consider necessary” occurring in Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 48 of the Act of 1916. While the Division Bench in Dr. Shamim Ahmad (supra) construed the words to mean that where the State Government was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the President, it was imperative upon the Government “to inquire into the matter by holding a full fledged inquiry.” The Division Bench in this case found that the words of the Statute were unambiguous and unequivocal. Those words did not make it imperative for the State Government to hold a full-fledged inquiry in every case, where it was not satisfied with the President’s explanation. The Division Bench in this case thought that the Division Bench in Dr. Shamim Ahmad’s case was not right in making a fullfledged inquiry imperative in every case. According to their Lordships “We are unable to find any reason for such overrid