VIQAR ULLAH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the following reliefs :

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner Sri Viqar Ullah is the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Sherkot, District Bijnor. He was elected in a bye-election held on 20-8-1955, for the remaining period which expires in October 1957. On 17-9-1956, he received a communication from the District Magistrate, Bijnor, under which certain charges framed against the said Town Area Committee were served upon him and he was asked to forward the explanation of the Town Area Committee along with his separate comments on the said explanation by 1-10-1956. On 27-9-1956, the Committee submitted its explanation and the petitioner forwarded the same with his comments. Some of the members tabled a no-confidence resolution against the petitioner being annoyed by his comments which was fixed for 23-5-1957. for discussion. The petitioner challenged the notice to move the no-confidence motion by means of a writ petition here. Thereafter on 8-6-1957. a notification was issued by the State Government superseding the Town Area Committee, Sherkot. The petitioner on 19-6-1957, moved an application before the District Magistrate, Bijnor, asking him to forbear from interfering with the exercise of powers and duties of the petitioner under the cover of the said notification of the State Government. The District Magistrate ordered status quo to be maintained and fixed the 1st of July, 1957, for the hearing of the petitioner's objection. On 1-7-1957, the District Magistrate, held that the petitioner will not be deemed to have vacated office of the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Sherkot, but the functions, powers and duties of the Chairman would vest in the District Magistrate and would be exercised by him with effect from 4-6-1957. The petitioner has challenged the notification of the State Government superseding the Town Area Committee and also the order of the District Magistrate of 1-7-1957, by which he has held that the petitioner has not vacated his office as the Chairman but the functions, powers and duties should be exercised by the District Magistrate.

(3.) At the time of the hearing of the petition the petitioner's counsel, however, confined his arguments to the validity of the notification, superseding the Town Area Committee. The validity of the notification has been challenged on a number of grounds. It was contended firstly by the petitioner that the notification of 8-6-1957 purports to be in the name of the Governor. It further recites that the Governor is satisfied that the Town Area Committee had persistently made defaults in the performance of its primary duties imposed on it by the Town Areas Act. It does not specify that the State Government has been so satisfied. The Governor is different and distinct from the Government. Section 36 of the Town Areas Act requires the satisfaction of the State Government before an action can be taken under the said section. It is, therefore, argued that there was no satisfaction of the State Government in the present case and consequently the condition precedent for the issue of a notification under Section 36 is not satisfied. The next point urged was that the notification does not contain reasons for making a declaration that the Committee had persistently made defaults in the performance of its primary duties. The notification is thus illegal and in contravention of the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. It was thirdly contended that the duties pointed out in the notification are not duties imposed upon the Committee under the provisions of the U. P. Town Areas Act or any other Act. It cannot therefore be said that the Committee had persistently made defaults in the performance of its primary duties. Lastly it was contended that the notification was published in the Gazette a few days after the orders have actually been passed and under the provisions of the Act the members ceased to function from the date of the order. The consequence is that an inconsistency has been brought about and the order was incapable of being enforced and as such invalid.