VEER BAHADUR SAXENA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10-2-1993 and the notice dated 12-3-1993 issued by the respondents nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has been elected as Sabhasad of Nagar Maha Palika, Bareilly. A post of Up Nagar Pramukh is lying vacant in the said Nagar Maha Palika. It is urged that the election for the post of Up Nagar Pramukh is scheduled to to held on 20-3-1993.

(2.) WE have heard Sri V. K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Sri G. D. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Maha Palika and Sri Murlidar learned counsel for the intervener Sabhasad. The controversy involved in the present writ petition Is legal one end hence we do not consider it to call for counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties also agree that the writ petition may be decided at the stage of admission itself without calling for counter and rejoinder affidavits.

(3.) WE have given our considerable thought to the contention raised by Sri Murlidhar but are unable to accept the sane, for the reasons that the meeting convened for the purpose and holding of election of the Up Nagar Pramukh has to be presided over by the Nagar Pramukh and in his absence by any member so nominated by the members present, under the rules. The order issued if any by the State Government to the contrary is illegal and cannot override to the specific provision contained in the Rule framed under the Act.