ANWARI BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to an order of the State Government dated 3.4.2000 passed under Section 48 (2A) of U. P. Municipalities Act, removing the petitioner from the office of President of Municipal Board, Bharatganj, district Allahabad.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as President of Municipal Board, Bharatganj. A motion of no-confidence was brought against her on which the District Magistrate by his order dated 29.10.1999 fixed 15.11.1999 as the date for consideration of the motion but the same was defeated. The State Government also initiated steps to remove the petitioner from the office of President and accordingly, served a notice upon her on 13.7.1999 requiring her to show cause why she should not be removed from the said office under Section 48 (2A) of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner gave a reply to the notice on 16.8.1999. Thereafter, the State Government passed the impugned order on 3.4.2000 removing the petitioner from the office of President of Municipal Board, Bharatganj. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Sri M. B. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that certain material was relied upon by the State Government but the copy of the same was not furnished to the petitioner, which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. He has also submitted that no reasons have been recorded by the State Government while passing the impugned order, which was necessary under sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the Act, and, therefore, there has been non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Learned standing counsel, who has appeared for respondents No. 1 to 5 has, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was aware of all the material which had been considered by the State Government, and, as such, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that though detailed reasons may not be there but the impugned order contains some reasons and, therefore, the requirement of sub-section (2A) of Section 48 has been met and the order removing the petitioner from the office of President of Municipal Board cannot be faulted on that ground.