The Commissioner's power under Section 34 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, to cancel a resolution passed by a Board is limited to resolutions that require further action to be taken and are likely to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury to the public.

K. C. AGAR.WAL, J.:- This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 17-9-1975, allowing the writ petition filed by Nannoomal Yadav, respondent No. 1. By the said petition the respondent No. 1 challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Commissioner dated July 21, 1975, purporting to be under Section 34 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts are as under:-

Firozabad town has a Municipal Board consisting of twenty eight members including the President. A meeting was convened by the President of the Municipal Board for April 28, 1975 to consider a number of matters. One of the matters mentioned in the agenda was about the election of a Senior and a Junior Vice-President for the said Board. The meeting took place on the aforesaid date but as the requisite number of members to constitute the quorum were not present in the said meeting, the same was adjourned for 29th of April 1975. On April 29, 1975, thereafter members of the Municipal Board assembled in the premises of the board and passed a special resolution electing Nannoo Mal Yadav, respondent No. 1 as its Vice-President. It appears that some members of the Municipal Board, thereafter, submitted written complaints to the District Magistrate, Agra and to the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra stating that the meetings held on 28th of April 1975 and on the 29th of April, 1975 were illegal and invalid as they had not received any notice for the same. On receiving the complaints, the District Magistrate directed the Additional District Magistrate, Firozabad to enquire into the matter and to submit a report about the same. The Additional District Magistrate, thereafter, submitted his report on the 3rd of July, 1975 stating that the notices were not received by all the members of the Municipal Board for the meeting held on 28th of April, 1975. In view of this he was of the opinion that the meeting in which Nanoo Mal Yadav, respondent No. 1, was elected as a Vice-President was also illegal. The report was submitted by the Additional District Magistrate on 3rd of July, 1975. The Commissioner, thereafter, held that the meetings held on 28th and 29th of April, 1975 were illegal, therefore, the respondent No. 1, could not be considered to be validly elected Vice-President of the Municipal Board, Firozabad. Being of the above opinion that the election of respondent No. 1 was invalid the Commissioner acting under Section 34 of the Act cancelled the special resolution passed on 29th of April, 1975.

2. After the resolution was cancelled by the Commissioner, the District Magistrate exercising power conferred by Section 54-A of the Act passed an order on the same date i.e., July 21, 1975, appointing the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board to perform the duties of the President of the said Board. He, thereafter, changed this order and passed another order dated 23-7-1975 authorising the Additional District Magistrate to function as the President of the Municipal Board.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of the resolution on 21-7-1975 Nanoo Mal, respondent No. 1, filed the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order of the Commissioner rescinding the resolution of the Board electing Nanoo Mal respondent No. 1 as Vice-President was vitiated in law as Section 34 of the Act did not authorise the District Magistrate to pass the impugned order. He also held that the order dated 23-7-1975 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 54-A of the Act being consequential was also liable to be quashed. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge the present appeal has been filed.

4. The first question which is required to be considered in the present case is whether the Commissioner could legally cancel the resolution dated 29-4-1975. The said resolution has been cancelled by the Commis