NARENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. COMMISSIONER GORAKHPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY resolution dated January 23, 1989 Narendra Kumar Verma, the writ petitioner, was elected Senior Vice-President of the Municipal Board (Nagar Palika), Padrauna, in the district of Deoria ('Board' for short) while Prem Kumar Jaiswai., the respondent no. 5 herein, was elected its Junior Vice President and one Ram Narain Prasad was elected its president In May, 1991 a no-confidence motion was passed by the Board against Sri Prasad and consequent thereupon the petitioner started functioning as the Officiating President of the Board. Sri Prasad died in the month of August, 1991 and as such he (the writ petitioner) continued to function as the president While he was functioning in that capacity, he fell ill in October 1991 and the respondent no. 5. being the Junior Vice President, stepped in his shoes. During the latter's regime a resolution was passed by the Board on 10-12-1991 removing the petitioner from his post as the Senior Vice President and appointing the respondent no. 5 in his place and stead. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed this writ petition. Municipal Boards are governed by and function under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 ('Act' or short) and section 48 thereof provides that the President of a Board can be removed by the State Government. The circumstances under which such removal can be ordered are also detailed therein Section 55 of the Act, which relates to the duties of the Vice- President, lays down, in sub-section (3) there of that the provisions of section 48 shall apply mutatis mutandis to Vice President in respect of the performance of any duty or exercise of any powers under this Section. From a reading of the above two Sections it is potently clear that a Vice-President can be removed exactly in the manner a President can be removed and that nececsarily means that it is only the State Government which has the power to remove a Vice President Since admittedly in the instant case the removal of the petitioner was ordered by the Board, which has no authority under the Act to do so, the impugned resolution must be said to be bad in law.

(2.) CONSEQUENTLY we allow this writ petition and quash the resolution of the Board dated 10-12-1991. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.