IQBAL AHAMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court to decide the question whether the State Government is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman or member of the Town Area Committee before confirming the order of his removal from office under Section 7-A of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), this case has been placed before the Full Bench. In the reference order the following questions have been formulated for consideration by the Full Bench :-

(2.) The relevant facts of the case necessary for proper appreciation of the questions raised may be stated thus :

(3.) The petitioner Iqbal Ahmad is the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Kopaganj, District Mau. The District Magistrate, Mau passed the order dated 23-12-1993 under Section 7-A of the Act for removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairman of the Committee. The State Government by order dated 21-12-1993 confirmed the order of the District Magistrate to remove the petitioner from the office of the Chairman of the Committee. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the aforementioned orders, inter alia, on the ground that the Government can confirm the order of the District Magistrate removing the Chairman only by passing a reasoned order after giving him an opportunity of hearing.In Pargana Adhikari, Sirathu v. Ramesh Chandra Verma (1994 All LJ 484) (supra) a Division Bench of this Court had laid down that it is obligatory on the Government to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman before confirming the order of the District Magistrate under Section 7-A of the Act. It is also laid down therein that it is not necessary for the Government to record elaborate reasons as are given in decisions of a Court of law in its order of confirmation; but the order must indicate that it has given due consideration to the points in controversy. In Panna Lal Khandelwal v. State of U.P. (supra), however, another Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that it is not obligatory on the part of the Government to give an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman before passing the order of confirmation. As noted earlier, faced with the said conflicting decisions the Division Bench in this case thought it proper to refer the case to Full Bench for an authoritative decision on the points formulated.