LAWS(ALL)-1976-4-23

WASUL HASAN Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 14, 1976
WASUL HASAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for N. D. Ojha, J.) :-The appellant is the elected Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Machhli Shahr, district Jaunpur. Proceedings under Section 7-A of the Town Areas Act, 1914, for his removal from the office of Chairman were started against him by the District Magistrate. The appellant filed a writ, petition in this Court challenging the proceedings on the ground that the District Magistrate was not empowered to initiate these proceedings and that the proceedings could only be initiated by the Prescribed Authority namely, the Commissioner. This contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, with the result that he dismissed the writ petition. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) SECTION 7-A empowers the Prescribed Authority or, where an authority has not been prescribed, the District Magistrate to remove a Chairman. The appellant relied upon a notification dated January 21, 1958, issued by the State Government, a copy of which is Annexure "2" to the writ petition, whereunder the Commissioner was appointed as the Presented Authority. On the basis of this notification the appellant contended that since a Prescribed Authority had been appointed, it alone could take action under SECTION 7-A and the District Magistrate could not take any action. The learned Standing Counsel has contended that upon a proper construction of this notification, the Prescribed Authority has only been conferred the powers which are enumerated in the notification and no other powers. His further contention is that since the power under SECTION 7-A is not mentioned in this notification, the Prescribed Authority has not been empowered to exercise power under SECTION 7-A. In our opinion, this contention is misconceived. The Prescribed Authority is defined in SECTION 2 (6-A) to mean the authority notified as such by the State Government. The notification dated January 21, 1958, upon which the appellant relied, is in these words :