Allahabad High Court

Sri Lalta Prasad Misra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner which is taken on record. (2) Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate has filed an application for intervention/ impleadment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the applicant's claim of being complainant is false. The complainant in this case was one Subhash Tripathi a sitting M.L.A. and not Uma Shankar Tiwari. Be that as it may, this is an issue which can be seen later. (3) Heard Sri Lalta Prasad Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for intervenor and Sri Vimal Srivastava, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. (4) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 17.12.2019, Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur was constituted. The first election to the Nagar Panchayat was held in 2023 and the petitioner took oath as President on 26.05.2023. The first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat was held on 09.01.2023 and on Page No.2

22.06.2023, a complaint was made against the Executive Officer whereupon the proceedings were drawn which have ultimately resulted in the impugned order removing the petitioner from office. (5) We have perused the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 by which the petitioner an elected President of Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur, District-Bahriach has been removed in purported exercise of power under Section 48 (2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (in short 'the Act, 1916'). Upto para no.10, the impugned order only contains narration of facts, the allegations, the response of the petitioner and the inquiries into the complaint without any finding by the State Government on any of the issues involved. This leaves us only with para nos.11 and 12. In fact, para no.12 is the operative portion of the order. Para no.11 and 12 read as under:- Þ11+ ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h mijksDRk vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk la[;k& 2237@2024 o vU; lEc) fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr vkns'k ds fnukad 11-03-2024 vuqikyu esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds izfrikfnr fln~/kkUr ds vk/kkj ij ;kph Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro dks 'kklu esa fnukad 17-09-2024 dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd;k x;kA O;fDRkxr lquokbZ ds le; v/; {k }kjk uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj }kjk fuxZr 02 lela[;d ,oa lefnukafdr i= la[;k& 23&2@u0ia0i0@lsok iznkrk@2023&24] fnukad 12-06-2023 esa ls 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= ds dwVjfpr] QthZ gksus dk dFku izLrqr fd;k x;k rFkk 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= ds dwVjfpr] QthZ gksus ds laaca/k esa vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds #i esa eks0 'kkg#[k] QkjsfUld bUosfLVxs'ku izk0fy0] 128@2 vo/k eksgu vikVZesUV] ch0,u0 jksM dsljckx y[kuÅ dh tkap fjiksVZ izLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr fjiksVZ esa 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= dks QthZ] dwVjfpr rFkk LdSu dj rS;kj fd;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ijUrq ;g ,d izkbosV ,tsUlh dh fjiksVZ gSA 'kklu esa fnukad 30-09-2024 dks iz'uxr izdj.k laca/kh uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj dk;kZy; }kjk fuxZr 02 i=ksa fnuakd 12-06-2023 ds laca/k esa Jh jketud frokjh] RkRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh i;kxiqj] Jh lR;iky] fyfid uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj] Jh jkts'k JhokLRko] ofj"B fyfid uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj dk c;ku fy;k x;k] ftlesa mDr yksxksa }kjk uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ds 02 lela[;d ,oa lefnukafdr i= Page No.3 la[;k&23&2@u0ia0i0@lsok iznkrk@2023&24] fnukad 12-06-2023 esa ls 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= dks uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ls fuxZr ugha gksus dk c;ku fn;k x;k] ijUrq fyfid ,ao ofj"B fyfidksa dk c;ku ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp }kjk xfBr lfefr ds le{k fn;s x;s c;ku ls iw.kZr % vyx fn;k x;k gS] tks fd fojks/kkHkklh izrhr gks jgk gSA 12- bl izdkj ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp dh vk[;k fnuakd 28-7-2023@07-08- 2023 ,oa lfpo] mRrj izns'k uxj ikfydk foRrh; lalk/ku fodkl cksMZ dh vk[;k fnuakd 01-09-2023 ds vk/kkj ij Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro v/;{k uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ds fo:) fuxZr Li"Vhdjk uksfVl fnuakd 22-09-2023 ,oa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fnuakd 28-2-2024 ds dze esa v/;{k }kjk izLrqr mRrj fnukad 18-03-2023 ij ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h vk[;k ,oa vU; laxr rF;ksa@vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro v/;{k] uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ds fo:) uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj tuin cgjkbp ds fu.kZ; dks vfu;fer] LosPNkpkfjrkiw.kZ] tu lkekU; ds LokLF; ds fo:) rFkk uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj dh turk ds fgrks dks izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus okyk] in ds drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu djus@in dk nq:i;ksx djus@'kklukns'kksa@vf/kfu;eksa@fu;eksa dk mYy?kau fd;s tkus dk vkjksi fl) ik;k x;k gSA vr% Jh jkT;iky mRrj izns'k uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1916 dh /kkjk 48 ds varxZr fufgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro dks v/;{k uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj] tuin cgjkbp ds in ls in~P;qr fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA˝ (6) The contention of petitioner's counsel is that none of the recitals in the impugned order are referable to Section 48 of the Act, 1916. Secondly, no finding based on any reasoning / material, much less a plausible one, on any of the allegations mentioned, is contained in the impugned order passed by the State Government nor any such ground referable to the grounds specified in Section 48 are mentioned in the show cause notice. The decision to remove under Section 48 has to be by the State Government. The District Magistrate is not the State Government. The submission is that an elected person holding the office of election cannot be removed in such a casual manner. The law in this regard is well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this Court. He has relied upon decision of Hon'ble the Page No.4 Supreme Court reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 'Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & ors.' and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2023 SCC Online All 1902 'Smt. Mehrunnissa vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' (7) We confronted the State counsel but he could not put forth any such ground before us which may be referable to Section 48 and may have been dealt with in the impugned order so as to even prima facie satisfy us as to the validity of the same. As regards the counsel for intervenor subject to objections raised by the petitioner's counsel even he could not point out any such valid ground. (8) Prima facie, para no.11 notices the contention of the petitioner that one of the two letters of the same date i.e.

12.06.2023 which were referred in the show cause notice i.e. one with regard to 39 employees and the allegations against the petitioner were fabricated as per the claim of the petitioner, however, this contention has been brushed aside by the State Government on the ground that the forensic report submitted in this regard by the petitioner is from a private agency. The order, however, nowhere says that if the said report is not acceptable is there any other material on the basis of which it could be said that said letters had not been fabricated and had in fact been issued by the concerned including the petitioner or that the petitioner was in any manner involved in the illegality referable to the said letters. There is no such finding. Para no.11 quoted above further refers to the statements of the officials/ employees of Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur recorded before the State Government on 30.09.2024 wherein also they have stated that said letter dated 12.06.2023 regarding 39 employees had not been issued from the Nagar Panchayat. Now, Page No.5 this fact has been brushed aside with the cryptic observation that statements of these very employees before the committee constituted by District Magistrate, Bahraich was different. However, no finding has been recorded as to what is the actual position and whether the letters are fabricated or not and how the petitioner is involved in the illegality alleged so as to attract section 48 of the Act, 1916. (9) We have perused the show cause notice also. We have also perused Section 48 of the Act, 1916. We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. Apparently, the order of removal does not satisfy the requirements of Section 48 of the Act, 1916 nor the law elucidated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions reported hereinabove. We find prima facie merit in the contention that a person holding an office of election cannot be removed in such a manner. Accordingly, we stay the operation of impugned order until further orders. The petitioner shall continue to function as President of Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur, District-Bahriach as per law. (10) Let pleadings be exchanged between the parties within six weeks. (11) List thereafter. (12) As far as locus standi of the applicant seeking intervention, let a written objection be filed by petitioner. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Shanu/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

Sri Lalta Prasad Misra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner which is taken on record. (2) Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate has filed an application for intervention/ impleadment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the applicant's claim of being complainant is false. The complainant in this case was one Subhash Tripathi a sitting M.L.A. and not Uma Shankar Tiwari. Be that as it may, this is an issue which can be seen later. (3) Heard Sri Lalta Prasad Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for intervenor and Sri Vimal Srivastava, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. (4) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 17.12.2019, Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur was constituted. The first election to the Nagar Panchayat was held in 2023 and the petitioner took oath as President on 26.05.2023. The first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat was held on 09.01.2023 and on Page No.2

22.06.2023, a complaint was made against the Executive Officer whereupon the proceedings were drawn which have ultimately resulted in the impugned order removing the petitioner from office. (5) We have perused the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 by which the petitioner an elected President of Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur, District-Bahriach has been removed in purported exercise of power under Section 48 (2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (in short 'the Act, 1916'). Upto para no.10, the impugned order only contains narration of facts, the allegations, the response of the petitioner and the inquiries into the complaint without any finding by the State Government on any of the issues involved. This leaves us only with para nos.11 and 12. In fact, para no.12 is the operative portion of the order. Para no.11 and 12 read as under:- Þ11+ ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h mijksDRk vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk la[;k& 2237@2024 o vU; lEc) fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr vkns'k ds fnukad 11-03-2024 vuqikyu esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds izfrikfnr fln~/kkUr ds vk/kkj ij ;kph Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro dks 'kklu esa fnukad 17-09-2024 dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd;k x;kA O;fDRkxr lquokbZ ds le; v/; {k }kjk uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj }kjk fuxZr 02 lela[;d ,oa lefnukafdr i= la[;k& 23&2@u0ia0i0@lsok iznkrk@2023&24] fnukad 12-06-2023 esa ls 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= ds dwVjfpr] QthZ gksus dk dFku izLrqr fd;k x;k rFkk 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= ds dwVjfpr] QthZ gksus ds laaca/k esa vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds #i esa eks0 'kkg#[k] QkjsfUld bUosfLVxs'ku izk0fy0] 128@2 vo/k eksgu vikVZesUV] ch0,u0 jksM dsljckx y[kuÅ dh tkap fjiksVZ izLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr fjiksVZ esa 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= dks QthZ] dwVjfpr rFkk LdSu dj rS;kj fd;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ijUrq ;g ,d izkbosV ,tsUlh dh fjiksVZ gSA 'kklu esa fnukad 30-09-2024 dks iz'uxr izdj.k laca/kh uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj dk;kZy; }kjk fuxZr 02 i=ksa fnuakd 12-06-2023 ds laca/k esa Jh jketud frokjh] RkRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh i;kxiqj] Jh lR;iky] fyfid uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj] Jh jkts'k JhokLRko] ofj"B fyfid uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj dk c;ku fy;k x;k] ftlesa mDr yksxksa }kjk uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ds 02 lela[;d ,oa lefnukafdr i= Page No.3 la[;k&23&2@u0ia0i0@lsok iznkrk@2023&24] fnukad 12-06-2023 esa ls 39 dkfeZdksa dh ekax okys i= dks uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ls fuxZr ugha gksus dk c;ku fn;k x;k] ijUrq fyfid ,ao ofj"B fyfidksa dk c;ku ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp }kjk xfBr lfefr ds le{k fn;s x;s c;ku ls iw.kZr % vyx fn;k x;k gS] tks fd fojks/kkHkklh izrhr gks jgk gSA 12- bl izdkj ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp dh vk[;k fnuakd 28-7-2023@07-08- 2023 ,oa lfpo] mRrj izns'k uxj ikfydk foRrh; lalk/ku fodkl cksMZ dh vk[;k fnuakd 01-09-2023 ds vk/kkj ij Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro v/;{k uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ds fo:) fuxZr Li"Vhdjk uksfVl fnuakd 22-09-2023 ,oa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fnuakd 28-2-2024 ds dze esa v/;{k }kjk izLrqr mRrj fnukad 18-03-2023 ij ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbp }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h vk[;k ,oa vU; laxr rF;ksa@vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro v/;{k] uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj ds fo:) uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj tuin cgjkbp ds fu.kZ; dks vfu;fer] LosPNkpkfjrkiw.kZ] tu lkekU; ds LokLF; ds fo:) rFkk uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj dh turk ds fgrks dks izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus okyk] in ds drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu djus@in dk nq:i;ksx djus@'kklukns'kksa@vf/kfu;eksa@fu;eksa dk mYy?kau fd;s tkus dk vkjksi fl) ik;k x;k gSA vr% Jh jkT;iky mRrj izns'k uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1916 dh /kkjk 48 ds varxZr fufgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh ckysUnz izrki JhokLro dks v/;{k uxj iapk;r i;kxiqj] tuin cgjkbp ds in ls in~P;qr fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA˝ (6) The contention of petitioner's counsel is that none of the recitals in the impugned order are referable to Section 48 of the Act, 1916. Secondly, no finding based on any reasoning / material, much less a plausible one, on any of the allegations mentioned, is contained in the impugned order passed by the State Government nor any such ground referable to the grounds specified in Section 48 are mentioned in the show cause notice. The decision to remove under Section 48 has to be by the State Government. The District Magistrate is not the State Government. The submission is that an elected person holding the office of election cannot be removed in such a casual manner. The law in this regard is well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this Court. He has relied upon decision of Hon'ble the Page No.4 Supreme Court reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 'Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & ors.' and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2023 SCC Online All 1902 'Smt. Mehrunnissa vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' (7) We confronted the State counsel but he could not put forth any such ground before us which may be referable to Section 48 and may have been dealt with in the impugned order so as to even prima facie satisfy us as to the validity of the same. As regards the counsel for intervenor subject to objections raised by the petitioner's counsel even he could not point out any such valid ground. (8) Prima facie, para no.11 notices the contention of the petitioner that one of the two letters of the same date i.e.

12.06.2023 which were referred in the show cause notice i.e. one with regard to 39 employees and the allegations against the petitioner were fabricated as per the claim of the petitioner, however, this contention has been brushed aside by the State Government on the ground that the forensic report submitted in this regard by the petitioner is from a private agency. The order, however, nowhere says that if the said report is not acceptable is there any other material on the basis of which it could be said that said letters had not been fabricated and had in fact been issued by the concerned including the petitioner or that the petitioner was in any manner involved in the illegality referable to the said letters. There is no such finding. Para no.11 quoted above further refers to the statements of the officials/ employees of Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur recorded before the State Government on 30.09.2024 wherein also they have stated that said letter dated 12.06.2023 regarding 39 employees had not been issued from the Nagar Panchayat. Now, Page No.5 this fact has been brushed aside with the cryptic observation that statements of these very employees before the committee constituted by District Magistrate, Bahraich was different. However, no finding has been recorded as to what is the actual position and whether the letters are fabricated or not and how the petitioner is involved in the illegality alleged so as to attract section 48 of the Act, 1916. (9) We have perused the show cause notice also. We have also perused Section 48 of the Act, 1916. We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. Apparently, the order of removal does not satisfy the requirements of Section 48 of the Act, 1916 nor the law elucidated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions reported hereinabove. We find prima facie merit in the contention that a person holding an office of election cannot be removed in such a manner. Accordingly, we stay the operation of impugned order until further orders. The petitioner shall continue to function as President of Nagar Panchayat, Payagpur, District-Bahriach as per law. (10) Let pleadings be exchanged between the parties within six weeks. (11) List thereafter. (12) As far as locus standi of the applicant seeking intervention, let a written objection be filed by petitioner. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Shanu/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)