NEETA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the last municipality election, petitioner was elected as Ward Member from Ward No. 4 Nagar Palika Parishad, Laksar. At the time of her election, she had two daughters and, after election, she had begotten the third child. Sec. 13(D)(e) of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, as applicable in Uttarakhand, provides that a person having more than two living children of whom one is born after expiry of 300 days from the date of notification i.e. 21/12/2002. would be disqualified for being a Member. One Shri Pankaj Kumar Bansal made a compliant that petitioner has incurred disqualification to continue as a Member in view of birth of third child. Since no decision was taken on his complaint, therefore, he filed WPMS No. 1321 of 2020, which was disposed of by this Court with liberty to him to make fresh representation before the District Magistrate and District Magistrate was directed to examine the matter and take appropriate decision. Under Sec. 40 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the power to remove a Member of Municipality vests in the State Government, therefore, the District Magistrate referred the matter to the State Government. The State Government has now passed an order on 13/7/2021, removing the petitioner from the office of Member. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that, before passing the impugned order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, requiring her to submit her written reply within fifteen days. Petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice, thus, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were violated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner, however, the statute does not provide for giving personal hearing.