RAMESH CHANDRA CHANCHAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impunged order of the state Government dated 24.6.1998 Annexure 5 to the writ petition passed under Section 48(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was elected as President of Nagar palika Parisad, Firozabad and took oath of his office on 2.12.1995. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent no. 3 is an MLA from district Firozabad and is at present Forest Minister, U.P. Government and is also State President of Samta Party which is allied to the B.J.P. It is alleged that respondent no. 3 has been criticising the petitioner and making false allegations against him. He also fielded a candidate against the petitioner for the post of President of Nagar Palika Parishad Firozabad who lost. It is alleged in parragraph 5 the the respondent no. 3 has always wanted to somehow throw out the petitioner from his office.

(2.) In paragraph 12 it is alleged that on 7.2.1998 a notice was issued by the State Government to the petitioner in which two charges were levelled against him and he was asked to show cause why he should not be removed from his office. True copy of the notice dated 7.2.1998 is Annexure 2 to the petition. The petitioner submitted his reply on 2.3.1998 vide Annexure 3 to the peittion. In this reply the petitioner stated that the notice was sent at the instance of the respondent no. 3 who wanted to throw out the peitioner from his office and he also gave reply on the mertis of the charges. The petitioner submitted another reply on 28.3.1998 vide Annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter the State Government passed the impugned order dated 24.6.1998 Annexure 5 to writ petition. Several grounds have been taken in this petition. The petitioner has alleged that the main report the District Magistrate date 8.5.1998. which has been relied upon by the State Government is passing the impugned order has not been supplied to the petitioner and hence the petitioner could not give a reply to the said report. It is also stated in paragraph 31 that the State Government has not considered the explanation given by the petitioner in reply to charge no. 1 In paragraph 32 it is stated that the State Government has not given any reason as to how charge no. 2 is proved against the petitioner but it has only relied on the report of the District Magistrate, copy of which has not been supplied to the petitioner. In paragraph 34 of the peition it is stated that the impugned order dated 24.6.1998 refers to another allegation against the petitioner of making 26 irregular appointments, but in the show cause notice dated 27.2.98 there was no such against the petitioner . In paragraph 37 of the petiton it is stated that copy of the enquiry report dated 26.3.1998 of the District

(3.) Magistrate was not supplied to the petitioner through it was relied upon by the State Government. It is stated that the respondent no. 3 by his influence got the impugned order passed. It is stated the pertitioner is an elected President and enjoyed the mejority in the Nagar Palika Parishad but he has been illegally removed . A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents land 2 and we have perused the same .