Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neelam Shan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30356 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Shan
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Harkauli,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. On oral mention made by Shri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is extremely urgent, we sent for the record of the case and it is heard in presence of Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The petitioner has called in question a notice/order dated 27.09.2022 issued by respondent no.1 calling upon the petitioner, who is President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Hasanpur, District Amroha, to show cause within seven days as to why action under Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 be not taken against her on the ground that she had contested the election on basis of a forged caste certificate. It is alleged that she belongs to General Category but contested election as member of Backward Caste. While calling for explanation from the petitioner, her financial and administrative powers have also been ceased in purported exercise of power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy relating to the validity of the caste certificate is still subjudice in a second appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and that the impugned order ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner is in breach of principles of natural justice as no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to her before passing the order.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel very fairly accepts that in the impugned order there is no indication of any show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner or her reply having been called for before exercising power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act.
5. This Court in its Full Bench judgment dated 18.12.2015 in Paras Jain vs. State of U.P. & 5 Ors. (Writ-C No.8179 of 2015), while answering question no.4, has laid down that an opportunity of being heard consistent with the principles of natural justice is a must before ceasing financial and administrative powers under Section 48(2) of the Act. The requirements of natural justice would warrant the grant of an opportunity to respond to the notice issued by the State indicating the basis for the formation of a reason to believe that the charges do not appear to be groundless and that the President is prima-facie guilty of any of grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act.
6. In view of law laid down above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order, insofar as it seeks to cease the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner without seeking her explanation, is manifestly illegal and is, accordingly, quashed leaving it open to the respondents to pass a fresh order, if so warranted, after complying with the principles of natural justice. It is clarified that the impugned notice, insofar as it seeks explanation of the petitioner in respect of charge against her for exercising power of removal under Section 48, is left intact and the petitioner shall respond to the said part of the notice in accordance with law.
7. It is further provided that the impugned notice will also be treated to be a show cause notice to the petitioner for exercising power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act and the petitioner will respond to it within two weeks from today so that a decision on the said aspect is taken by respondent no.1 within next two weeks.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.9.2022
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
