District Magistrate cannot withdraw powers of Municipal Chairperson without State Government's approval under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act.

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra along with Sri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing State - respondents, Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sameer Kalia and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad and Sri S.C. Kashish along with Sri Devendra Pratap Verma, learned counsels appearing for the Caveator - Ashutosh Kumar @ Monu.

2. Petitioner is the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur. By means of the impugned Office Order dated 7th January, 2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad have been withdrawn under proviso to S.48(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as '1916 Act').

3. The first and foremost submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate, Sitapur has no power under the law to pass such an order withdrawing / seizing the financial and administrative powers of the Chairman of a Nagar Palika Parishad under the aforesaid provisions.

4. Referring to the proviso to S.48(2) and the judgment of the Court in the case of Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. 2016 (34) LLD 424 (FB), the submission is that it is the State Government which has to record the reasons as required under the said proviso and upon satisfaction being recorded by the State Government, only then the financial and administrative powers of a Chairman could be seized. Since, there is no order of the State Government / satisfaction of the State Government recorded for withdrawing / seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, the impugned Office Order passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur on 7th January, 2019 (Annexure - 1 to the petition) cannot be sustained.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the above argument has sought to argue on various other points but we called upon the State and the other respondents to first answer this question and only thereafter to proceed further.

6. Learned Senior Counsel and other counsels appearing for the respondents have not been able to show any such provision where the District Magistrate could have powers to record such a finding and seize the power of the Chairman of a Nagar Palika Parishad during the pendency of an enquiry. They have also not been able to show us from the relevant provision under the Act that the District Magistrate had any role to play except that upon withdrawal of such powers i.e. administrative and financial of the Chairman, the same could be exercised by the District Magistrate or an Officer nominated by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector for day - to - day management of the Nagar Palika Parishad.

7. The proviso to S.48(2) of the 1916 Act is reproduced below: -

48(2)  xxxx xxxx xxxx

[Provided that where the State Government has reason to believe that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima facie guilty on any of the grounds of this sub-section resulting in the issuance of the show - cause notice and proceedings under this sub-section he shall, from the date of issuance of the show - cause notice containing charges, cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show - cause notice issued to him under this sub-section and finalization of the proceedings under sub-section (2 - A) and the said powers, functions and duties of the President during the period of such ceasing, shall be exercised,