RAEES ALVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No. 4 at this stage in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed. The petitioner who is a member of Nagar Panchayat, Joya, District Amroha has been removed in exercise of the powers vested in the State Government under Section 40(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. The impugned order dated 21.8.2014, records that the petitioner is responsible for causing loss and damage to the funds and property of the municipality as per the findings recorded therein and consequently his removal is justified.

(2.) THE petitioner had taken a stand in his reply which was sent by Registered Post on 11.3.2014 as per Annexure -4 to the writ petition that the alleged incident of selling trees and bricks and the functioning of the petitioner as a mutwalli of the Kabristan, when such decision was taken, was much prior to the petitioner becoming a member of the Nagar Panchayat. The resolution under which the said transactions took place are dated 4.3.2012. At that point of time the petitioner was not a member of the Nagar Panchayat, therefore, the provisions of Section 40(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 are not attracted.

(3.) SHRI Sisodia contends that no action of the petitioner was involved during his period of membership.