DAMYANTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. R. Chaudhary, J. The petitioner Smt. Damyanti Singh has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 5-4-99 served on 15-4-99 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure 25 to the writ petition) under Section 48 (2) (a) (b) (vi) and (vii) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') removing the petitioner from the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Farruk habad.

(2.) FACTS leading to the controversy are that the petitioner was elected as Presi dent of Nagar Palika Parishad, Farruk habad in December, 1995. One of the Cor porators made some complaint dated 31-10- 96 against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint aforesaid Respondent No. 1 directed the District Magistrate, Far rukhabad to enquire into the matter and submit the report. Accordingly the City Magistrate submitted his enquiry report dated 28-3-97 which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate sent his report alongwith the enquiry report to the Government with the recommenda tion to take appropriate action against the petitioner and the employees whose ap pointments were irregular. Respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice dated 22-4-97 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 30-6-97 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition ). The Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 4-7-97 under Section 48 (2) (a) of the Act removing the petitioner from the post of President. The Stationer challenged the order dated 4-7-7 by filing a Writ Petition No. 22600 of 1997. This Court by means of an interim order dated 15-7-97 stayed the operation of the removal order dated 4-7-97.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner apprehended that the writ petition would become infructuous in case the fresh election of the President is not stayed by this Court. On 23-4-99 this Court passed an order that in case the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside then the fresh election would automatically be illegal. On 1-6-99 another order was passed by this Court to the effect that Respondent No. 1 shall not notify the result of the election. However, fresh election was completed and one Dr. Rajni Sarin has been elected as President. Since the notification of the result was stayed by this Court. The newly elected President, Dr. Rajni Sarin approached this Court, Luck-now Bench by tiling a Writ Petition No. 2749 MD of 1999. This petition was dis posed of by a consent order dated 25-6-99 wherein it was held that there is no bar to declare the result under Rule 30, a copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the application dated 7-5-99. This Court by an order dated 8-7-99 directed the parties to maintain status ciao as on 1-6-99.