JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J.
1. This petition has been filed by one Bhagwati Prasad Khetan, who is a Member of Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur, raising certain grievances against the conduct of opposite party No. 5, Bhola Nah Agrawal, Adhyaksha Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur. Appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has been put in through Counsel Sri A.K. Bajpai.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The prayer is that opposite party No. 2 namely, the State may be directed to take action against the opposite party No. 5 under Sections 35 and 48 (7) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. It is also prayed that a C.B.I, enquiry be also ordered to be conducted against opposite party No. 5. Certain allegations have been made by the petitioner against opposite party No. 5, like allotment of shops against the Rules and other matters in which, it is said, opposite party No. 5 is misusing his authority as Adhyaksha. It is submitted that the State Government in authorised to remove such an Adhyaksha under Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act.
4. The petitioner himself is one of the members of the Nagar Palika Parishad. It is always open to a member to move for no-confidence in the Adhyaksha. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a motion has got to be signed by many members whereas the petitioner is an independent candidate and hence it may not be possible for him to move the motion. However, from Annexure-16, by which a complaint was made against the Adhyaksha, it is clear that 8 members had signed the complaint. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 submits that the petitioner is not an independent member, but belongs to Janta Dal. We, however, need not enter into that question. The fact remains that eight members had moved the complaint, hence there is no impediment in the way of the petitioner or other members to move a motion of no confidence if they feel 'that the alleged misconduct exists against the opposite party No. 5.
5. As regards the complaint, Annexure-16, learned Counsel, for the petitioner submits that he has heard nothing about the said complaint made to the State Government so for, hence the State Government, be directed to enquire into it and take appropriate steps in the matter. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1, on the basis of the instructions received, submitted that on the complaint of the members made in January, 1997, comments were sought and a reply was also sent. Hence it cannot be said that the Government not take any step in the matter. In the above facts, we feel, it would be appropriate for the petitioner, if he so desires to pursue the matter with the State Government rather than to pary for issuance of a writ to the State Government to take action in the matter. In case any orders have been passed in the matter, the petitioner may ask the information about the same which may be furnished to the petitioner.
6. We find no good reason to interfere to the matter we, therefore decline to entertain the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.