SHYAM MURARI LAL SAXENA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE members of the Municipal Board, Kaimganj, passed a motion of no-confidence against the President. The term of the senior Vice-President, namely, Sri R. K. Agarwal, was to expire on 11th July, 1975. He, however, submitted his resignation to the District Magistrate on 7th July, 1975. On 8th July, 1975, Shyam Murari Lal Saxena, the appellant, made a representation to the District Magistrate that he was a duly elected junior Vice-President and so was entitled to function as the President of the Municipal Board. The District Magistrate, however, passed an order on 8th July, 1975 directing that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can function and perform the duties of the President of the Municipal Board, Kaimganj, under Section 54-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. It appears that the representation filed by the appellant reached the District Magistrate subsequently whereupon he asked the appellant to appear before him on 14th July, 1975, to substantiate his case that he was the duly elected junior Vice- President. The appellant, however, did not appear before the District Magistrate. He gave notice of a writ petition to the Standing Counsel on 14th July, 1975 and instituted the same in this Court on 15th July, 1975.

(2.) ON 15th July, 1975 the District Magistrate passed an order rejecting the appellant's representation holding that the appellant was not validly elected junior Vice-President.

(3.) AT the hearing of the writ petition an objection was taken on behalf of the Standing Counsel with regard to the right of the appellant to be heard in support of the writ petition on the ground that he had violated the interim order passed in the writ petition. The interim order was that in the meantime the petitioner may continue to function as Junior Vice-President, but he will so function under the supervision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, who has been appointed by the District Magistrate to discharge the functions of the President so that he shall not be entitled to take any action without the prior approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was alleged that the appellant has suspended some members of the staff without prior approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer and so he had violated the interim order. The learned single Judge went into this controversy and ultimately held that the appellant had passed the order of suspension without taking the approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It was further held that since the petitioner had disobeyed the direction of this Court as embodied in the interim order dated 9-10-1975, he was not entitled to any relief. On this ground the writ petition was dismissed.