RAMASHRAYA Vs. DIST PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE in all the abovementioned writ petitions, the question, facts and law involved are common, thus, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, writ petition No. 27562 of 1997 shall be the leading case.

(2.) ACCORDING to an Old fable a "jin" even if killed, takes another form and shape and lives for ever. One would have thought that after the decision in Haji Ghafoor Bux v. State of U. P. , (1991) 1 UPLBEC 505, writ petition No. 6091 of 1990 and writ petition No. 2832 of 1990, decided on 19-2-1991 and similar writ petitions by the Division Bench of this Court, sitting at Lucknow, in which I was a member, finally set at rest the controversy, that the elected members of the Municipal Board may pass a vote of non confidence against the President of the Board, who has been directly elected by the registered voters of the city and in that regard the vague concept of democracy that a person directly elected by the electorates could only be dislodged by the electorates, not by the members of the Board, would have no relevance. But the same argument which did not find favour with the Court has been raked up again, in spite of the following observations: "in the backdrop of the law discussed in the Statute that a motion of no confidence would be considered by the members of the Board even in respect of the President elected directly by the electorate. In these matters, a provision contained, in the Statute will be binding and legally hold good. "

(3.) IN Para 4 it was further observed: "a President who is elected by the entire electorate when removed by such members of the Board who have also been elected by the people is in fact removal by the electorate itself. Such provision neither violates the spirit for purpose of recall of an elected representative. Rather ensures removal by a responsible body. It cannot be criticised either as irrational or arbitrary or violative of any democratic norm. IN fact construing the provision as suggested would render it unreasonable. A President of a Municipal Board of more than one Lakh Population would be removable by the Board comprising of elected representatives where as a President of smaller Board would virtually get immunity from removal. It would be contrary to scheme of the Act and against public interest. "