RAMA SHANKER BARNWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel of the petitioner. Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 9, at length and in detail.

(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 27th January, 1999. passed by the State Government, the respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is Annexure-'6' to the petition. The impugned order, which has been passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. (hereinafter called the 'Act'), purports to remove the petitioner from the office of Chairman. Nagar Panchayat, Bhatparrani in the district of Deoria.

(3.) Taking cognizance of certain complaints received by it, the respondent No. 1 formed an opinion that during the performance of his duties as Chairman, the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Act warranting action under Section 48 of the Act. It, therefore, issued notice dated 25th October, 1997 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from his office. The notice was served on the petitioner on 13th November. 1997, which was duly received by the petitioner on 20th November, 1997. From the pleadings of the parties before the Court, it transpires that subsequent to the filing of reply by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Deoria, the respondent No. 2 sent comments on the reply of the petitioner. These comments are before the Court as Annexure-CA-II, appended to the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Rajesh Kumar Rai, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Salempur, Deoria, the respondent No. 3, filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 27th January. 1999.