NARESH KUMAR JATAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Naresh Kumar Jatav is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by respondent no.1; for a direction to the respondents not to create any hindrance in the petitioner's functioning as Corporator Ward No.23, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and for a further direction to the respondents to supply the copy of the show cause notice and documents annexed thereto.

(2.) As per record, this much is reflected that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes (SC) category and was elected as Corporator of Ward No.23 of Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad in the election held in the year 2012. It is averred that the petitioner made a complaint against the local leader of ruling Samajwadi Party namely Jyoti Tiwari regarding the irregularities being committed by the firm of her husband in the development work given by Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. Pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, an inspection was done by the Executive Engineer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam and a report was submitted indicating the irregularities committed by the firm of the husband of the said Jyoti Tiwari and action was taken against the firm. It is alleged that aggrieved with the same, Jyoti Tiwari made a complaint to the Minister, Urban Development, U.P. for taking action against the petitioner stating that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the property of the Nagar Nigam. On that complaint an endorsement was made by the Minister concerned and consequently a show cause notice dated 4.5.2016 had been issued to the petitioner calling upon to file reply within 15 days regarding the allegations. The said letter is alleged to have never been served upon the petitioner. Consequently a letter dated 21.7.2016 sent through speed post was served upon the petitioner on 2.8.2016 calling upon the petitioner to file reply within a week. In the said letter there was a mention of earlier show cause dated 4.5.2016 and as such first time the petitioner got the information of the show cause dated 4.5.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice dated 4.5.2016 has never been served upon the petitioner before the letter dated 21.7.2016, which was served on 2.8.2016 and meanwhile, the time, which was accorded to the petitioner had expired. Thereafter, the petitioner got necessary information regarding track event of the speed post and then he got the information that the letter dated 21.7.2016 was dispatched from Lucknow on 28.7.2016 and finally the same was delivered to the petitioner on 2.8.2016. The letter dated 21.7.2016, envelope of the speed post and the receipt of detail of track event have been brought on record collectively as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. It is claimed that neither show cause notice dated 4.5.2016 by which 15 days' time was accorded to the petitioner to submit his reply nor the letter dated 21.7.2016 was received by the petitioner within time so that he could furnish his detailed objections and as such it is sought to be contended that the respondent authorities without ensuring that neither the show cause notice nor the subsequent letter had been served to the petitioner had passed the impugned order. At no point of time the petitioner was accorded any opportunity to controvert the allegations so levelled against the petitioner and as such the entire action so initiated against the petitioner is per se bad. Reliance has also been placed upon Sec. 554 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (in short "the Act of 1959") and as such it is sought to be contended that the entire proceedings are vitiated. The provisions contained under Sec. 83 of the Act of 1959, which deals with the removal of member of the Corporation had also not been adhered to and as such the order impugned is per se bad and the same is against the Principle of Natural Justice and thus this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

(3.) Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was obligatory upon the respondents to at least supply the copy of the initial show cause notice dated 4.5.2016 on the basis of which the order impugned was passed so that the petitioner could submit proper explanation as to whether the allegations so levelled against the petitioner is justified or not. The submission is that the impugned order deserves to be set aside for the reason that at no point of time the petitioner was accorded any opportunity in the matter and no application of mind was there while passing the impugned order.