JUDGMENT

V.D. Bhargava, J. - These conneted applications (sic) on behalf of Mohar Singh and Ram Dayal Shukla Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the applicants were elected as members of the Notified Area Committee, Colonelganj, district Gonda, in October, 1953 and they had been acting as such upto March, 1956. t is alleged that there were two parties in the Notified Area and of the 11 members 6 belonged to the party of the applicants and 5 to the other. The parties of the Petitioners were in majority and the President belonged to the other party. On account of this tie, the President wanted somehow or the other to reduce the majority to a minority.

2. As against Mohar Singh, a false complaint was filed sometime in August, 1955 by the Secretary and same other officials of the Notified Area Committee that he had abused the Secretary in public for refusing to act in a manner suggested by one Ranjit Singh in connection with the application of one Jaimal Singh for permission to build a house. The Petitioner Mohar Singh, was not aware of this complaint at all. On 2-11-1955 a letter was issued to him by the District Magistrate requiring him to show cause within 15 days why he should not be removed from the membership of the Notified Area. The charge framed against him was that he was forcing the Secretary to make some interpolation in the plan for the construction of a house and he abused the Secretary on refusal to comply with his request. An explanation was submitted by him to the Commissioner, Faizabad Division through the District Magistrate, Gonda in which it stated that the charges levelled were frivolous and false and a regular inquiry be held and he also prayed that full opportunity be given to him to cross examine the witnesses. No opportunity seems to have been given and no inquiry s terns to have been made in presence of the Petitioner and all of a sudden he had been informed by the Commissioner that he has been removed from the membership.

3. Similarly, in the case of Ram Dayal Shukla, in April, 1954 he was deputed by the President of the Notified Area Committee to inspect the Cattle Pound of Colonelganj of which one Munshi Abdul Ahad was incharge. The applicant submitted his report on 10-4-1954. In that report it is said that it was mentioned that a false charge had been made by the Munshi against him (applicant) and the applicant wanted bribe from the Munshi and on refusal the applicant made an adverse report against him (Munshi) and in the margin it was written that an inquiry be made. It was alleged against him that in this report there was a further sentence to the effect that an inquiry be made in this matter or this be treated as his resignation. It was alleged that this part of the report was (sic) and later on this interpolation on the margin was made. On 10-1-1950 the applicant was served with a notice from the District Magistrate dated 22-12-1955 asking him to show cause why he should not be removed from the membership.

4. On the above charges on 24-1-1956 the applicant submitted his explanation stating that the charge against him of tampering with the record was false. Again without any inquiry and without giving any opportunity to produce evidence and to cross examine the witnesses, he was by an order dated 31-3-1956 removed from the membership.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicants contends that this is against the principles of natural justice to pass an order against a person without giving him an opportunity to defend himself or to examine witnesses and the applicant had a right as being a member of Town Area and the action has been taken on no legal evidence. It is not known whether the statement made were on oath or not and even if they were on oath they cannot be admitted unless there was an opportunity of cross-examination.

6. The learned Counsel for the state relies on Sub-clause 3 or 4 of Section 40 of the Municipalities Act. Sub-clause 3 of Section 40 gives the right to the state Go