UMAR HAYAT KHAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE President of the Municipal Board, Jalesar, was removed from office as a motion of no confidence was passed against him. In the absence of the President, Senior Vice President is functioning as the Acting President. This situation has encourag ed party politics amongst the members of the Municipal Board with a view to elect Senior Vice President of their own choice. The peti tioner claims that he was elected Senior Vice President on June 24, 1974 by an unanimous resolution of the Board. The District Magistrate passed an order on July 26, 1974 on the report of the Sub-Divi sional Officer who had held an enquiry into the matter, that no reso lution of the Board had been ever passed electing the petitioner as Se nior Vice President. The District Magistrate therefore directed that Junior Vice President, Mohd. Mansha Alia Khan will function as the Acting President. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present pe tition challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated July 26, 1970.

(2.) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that once petitioner was elected Senior Vice President by the Board, the District Magistrate had no authority in law to direct that the Junior Vice President Mohd. Mansha Allah Khan will function as the Acting President. It is true that under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act if a person is elected Senior Vice President as a meeting duly convened for the purpose of holding the election of Vice President the District Magis trate has no power to restrain the Vice President so elected from func tioning as Acting President under Section 54-A of the Act. But if the meeting is not validly convened or if no agenda is circulated for the purpose of holding the election or if no resolution is adopted by the members present at such a meeting there would be no valid elec tion in the eye of law. In the instant case a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by Krishna Prasad Sharma.

(3.) THESE facts clearly show that there is a serious dispute about the existence of the resolution which is alleged to have been passed on June 24, 1974. If no such resolution was passed the petitioner has no right to function as Senior Vice-President or as Acting President. On the material on record it is not possible to hold that in fact a resolution had been pass ed by the Board electing the petitioner as Senior Vice President on June 24, 1974.