TOWN AREA COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a Town Area Committee in the district of Etah known as Town Area Committee, Amanpur (in short committee). The committee is established and constituted under the U. P. Town Area Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The strength of the members of the Committee is 9 and a Chairman. In the last elections held on 12-11-1988, 9 members were elected as members of the Committee. Petitioners no. 3 to 6 are elected members of the Committed and petitioner no. 2 was elected as Chairman of the Committee. Since non of the members elected on 28-11- 1988 was either woman or person belonging to Safai Mazdoor class, the State Government in exercise of its power under the first and second proviso of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of th? Act nominated Smt. Vidya Devi as woman member of the Committee and Babu Ram as member of the Committee belonging to Safai Mazdoor class. Thus the strength of the Committee became 11 and a Chairman of the Committee. Subsequently, by notification dated 12-2-1990, the State Government cancelled the earlier notification by which Smt. Vidya Devi and Sri Babu Ram were nominated as members of the Committee. After revocation of the aforesaid notification it is alleged that Sarvsri Prem Chandra, Vipin Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Roop Kishore and Rameshwar Dayal who were elected members of the Committee tendered their resignations which were accepted by the Competent authority on 20-3-1990. After the aforesaid members resigned, the District Magistrate, Etah by an order dated 21-3-1990 dissolved the Committee under Sub-section 2 of Section 10-AA of the U. P. Municipalities Act as according to him the number of the members of the Committee for the time being was reduced to less than one-half of the total number of the members of the Committee. It is against this order that the petitioners have come up to this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order dated 21-3-1990 is illegal in view of the fact that the total number of members of the Committee is not reduced to less than one-half of the number of members of the Committee for the time being. LEARNED counsel submitted that the notification by which two members were nominated by the State Government was subsequently revoked and, therefore, strength of members of town area was reduced to ten members i.e. nine being elected members and a Chairman and after the five elected members resigned, the number of the members of the committee for the time being was of five members i.e. four elected members and a Chairman which is not less than half of the total number of the members for the time being and as such the order is Illegal.

(3.) FACED with this situation Sri Singh argued that once a notification was issued by the State Government nominating one woman as member of the Committee and another person as member belonging to Safai Mazdoor class, the strength of the Town Area Committee became 12 and any subsequent revocation of the said notification will not reduce the increased strength of the Committee. This argument has no merit. It is relevant to quote Section 5 of the Town Area Act and Sub-Section 2 of Section 10 A A of the Municipalities Act