Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 of tenancy rights of the shop in question, which all was done after the necessary resolution was passed by the Members of the Nagar Palika and not by the President alone. What we find from the impugned order is that the explanation given by the petitioner has not been dealt with or considered by the respondent no. 1 while passing the final order. 8. Foundation of democracy in our country is laid down at the grass root level. In the villages, Gram Pradhans are democratically elected by the people. In towns and cities, the Members and President of Nagar Palika Parishad are elected by the people under the provisions of the Municipalities Act. It is this democratic process, which begins from the grass root level and goes upto the election of the Members of Legislative Assemblies and the Parliament, which runs the State Governments and the country. At the lower level, the village panchayats and local bodies are elected by the people so that people, through their representatives, have their say in the running of the local bodies. No doubt the power to either cease the financial and administrative powers or the removal of a duly elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad is provided in the Act itself, but the same has to be exercised with caution and not in a routine manner at the whims and fancies of the authorities so as to disturb the very fabric of democracy and shake the foundation of a body duly elected by the people. Parliament has recognized the role of local bodies, specially the Panchayats and Municipalities by amending the Constitution and making Constitutional provisions in the matter of term of office and other conditions. 9. In the present case, what we see is that the entire exercise has been undertaken by the respondent authorities with a predetermined mind, throwing to the winds the entire procedure prescribed in law. This is evident from a plain reading of impugned order as well as the conduct of the respondents while dealing with a serious matter of removal of the petitioner who is a democratically elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad. Neither his reply has been properly considered nor written submissions taken into account, except for a mere mention in the order that nothing material has been stated therein. If this is permitted, then in every case all replies, arguments and submissions can always be brushed aside in a sentence by stating that nothing material has been argued or submitted and thus the reply or submission is rejected. Authorities performing quasi judicial functions are obliged to give reasons for not accepting the replies or submissions of a party. This is to ensure that there is nothing arbitrary in the actions of the authorities and that the authority has looked into the matter after applying his mind. In the present case, the same is totally lacking. This Court strongly deprecates the same. What we also notice is that the conduct of the respondents in the case of the petitioner earlier also has not been very fair as once after the order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as President had been stayed by this Court on 4.2.2010, the same was not restored for more than four months till 23.6.2010, without there even being any stay order from the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents, which was ultimately dismissed.
1 All Shiv Om and others V. District Judge, Farrukhabad 461 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find merit in this petition and are of the opinion that the order dated 27.1.2011 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 27.1.2011 passed by the respondent no. 1 is set aside. It shall be open for the respondents, if they are so advised, to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner. If the order be adverse, it is not to be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. We make it clear that since the impugned order has been set aside, the petitioner shall be forthwith allowed to function as President with all powers. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8528 of 2001 Shiv Om and others Versus District Judge, Farrukhabad Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Anand Behari Lal Verma Sri Tahir Hussain Farooqui Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sunil Ambwani Sri Amit Sthaleker S.C. …Petitioners ...Respondent Constitution of India, Article 226-right to appointment-out of 7 post of class 4 th employees -appointment made strict in accordance with merit-thereafter the list lost its existence-petitioner admittedly below in merit than those candidatessubsequent appointment from retrenched employer-petitioner being stranger can not be allowed to question the same-held-no right to claim appointment. Held: Para 8 and 9 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records. The advertisement, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, specifically mentions that there are 7 vacancies of Class-IV employee on the regular side and there are 9 vacancies of Class-IV employees which are reserved for appointment of retrenched employees. Admittedly, as against 7 regular vacancies, candidates strictly in accordance with merit list have been appointed. Petitioners are lower in merit viz-a-viz all the seven candidates appointed. With the appointment of 7 candidates against regular vacancies, the select list preprepared for the purpose lost its life. The same was rightly cancelled under the order dated 04th December, 2000. The controversy in that regard stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Ray and others vs. High Court of Delhi and others; (2010) 2 SCC 637. So far as the vacancies reserved for retrenched employees are concerned, the petitioners can have no claim as they do not belong to said category. With regard to the appointments offered by way of promotion from the post of Chowkidar and Mali to that of Process Server to the persons named in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners not being employee of judgeship cannot object to such promotion. Case law discussed: (2010) 2 SCC 637; (2002) 10 SCC 269; (2002) 10 SCC 549.
Page 1 and 2:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6:
1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 25 and 26:
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 27 and 28: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 29 and 30: 1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50: 1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94: 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 103 and 104: 1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 111 and 112: 1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?