SRI MEWA LAL YADAVA S/O. SRI GOPI CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT U.P. GENERAL SECRETARIAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the proceedings for the removal of the Petitioner from the membership of the Municipal Board, Bhadohi, the notice dated 12 -1 -1957, issued to him to show cause and the order of removal dated 5 -8 -1957.

(2.) THE Petitioner was elected a member of the Municipal Board, Bhadohi, in the year 1953 and was elected as the Senior Vice President of the Board in the year 1955. Since then he has been acting as Vice President of the Board. Some complaint was made to the District Magistrate of Banaras against the present Petitioner. The District Magistrate sent a communication to that effect to the Commissioner of the Banaras Division who moved the State. Government for taking action against the Petitioner under Sub -section (3) of Section 40 of the UP Municipalities Act. On 12 -1 -1957, a letter was received by the Commissioner of the Banaras Division calling upon him to serve the notice dated 12 -1 -1957, on the Petitioner and ask the Petitioner to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of such notice why he should not be removed from the membership of the Municipal Board under Sub -section (3) of Section 40 of the UP Municipalities Act on the ground that he had abused his powers while acting as President of the Board. The Petitioner then submitted his explanation on 4 -5 -1957, and disputed the allegations made against him. The State Government thereupon issued an order on 5 -8 -1957, removing the Petitioner from the membership of the Board. It is against that order that the present petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) AS regards the first contention raised by the Petitioner, it is sufficient to point out that Section 48 provides the procedure and contains the grounds on which a President of the Board can be removed. The Petitioner acted as President for a short time in the absence of the President but the action has not been taken to remove him from the office of the president but from his office of the member of the Board and, consequently, it cannot be said that the proceedings should have been taken under Section 48 and not under Sub -section (3) of Section 40 of the Act. The conduct, on which the action has been taken against the Petitioner, was no doubt of the period when he acted as the President but the State Government has removed him from the membership of the Board. He was a member of the Board and action could be taken against him under Section 40. There is, therefore, no Substance in so far as the first contention raised by the Petitioner is concerned.