Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDRA PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravindra Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 19233 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 13245 (8 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19233 of  2004

Ravindra Pandey

Vs.

State of U.P. & Anr.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 07/5/2004 passed under Section 48(2) (A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Chairman/Adhyaksha Nagar Palika Parishad, Mathura.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the  petitioner had been elected on the said post in the year 2000. He was served upon a show cause notice dated 30/3/2003 by the District Magistrate, Mathura, wherein the petitioner was directed to explain as to why he had not convened the meeting of the Municipal Board during the past six months. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 20/8/2002. After considering the said reply vide impugned order dated 07/5/2004 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner he has been removed from the said post.  The tenure for which the petitioner was elected for the said office has expired. This Court had granted the interim relief in favour of the petitioner being fully convinced that the report submitted by the District Collector, Mathura to the State Government had never been made available to the petitioner and he had not been granted an opportunity of hearing before passing the order of removal. Under the interim order of the Court he continued in the office till his tenure expired thus, technically petition has become infructuous. However, in view of the statutory provision if the impugned order is not quashed, it may be disqualification for him for contesting the election in future, therefore the matter is to be heard on merit.

Shri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondent authority for removal of the petitioner is not sufficient, even to remove a Class IV temporary employee. Persons duly elected who have been kept on a higher pedestal because of the amendment in the Constitution by insertion of Part IX-A wherein the Local Self Government Authorities have been conferred status of constitutional authorities there should be a full fledged inquiry depending upon the facts involved in a particular case, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner had been given a charge sheet and he has submitted a reply and after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed and it was sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice, thus no interference is called for.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

This Court has considered large number of identical cases including Umesh Baijal & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2004) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1235; Munna Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2005 (3) ESC (All) 1662; and Smt. Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2005 (3) ESC (All) 2209, wherein it has categorically been held that duly elected persons have to be removed keeping in mind that they have been conferred status of constitutional authority and a full fledged inquiry is required taking into consideration the charges levelled against the said incumbent of the office.

In the instant case as the report of the District Collector, Mathura submitted against the petitioner has not been made available to him, it cannot be held to be a case of compliance of principles of natural justice.

Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court  in Umesh Baijal (supra).

In view of the above, petition succeeds and is allowed and  the impugned order dated 07/5/2004 is quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate afresh proceedings against the petitioner, if they so desire, is permissible in law.

08/8/2006

SB


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.