Petitioner's contention is that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this court reported in (2011) 2 UPLBEC 889, Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others confirming the Division Bench Judgment of this court reported in 2008 (1) ESC 407 (All) (DB), Imran Masood Vs. State of U.P. and others, import of such judgment is that while ceasing the power of the President of the Municipality, opportunity of hearing will be given pursuant to proviso under Section 48(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 read with the judgment.
We have gone through the proviso and found that where the State Government has reason to believe that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima facie guilty on any of the grounds of this sub-section resulting in the issuance of the show-cause notice and proceedings under this sub-section he shall, from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice containing charges, cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice issue to him under this sub-section and finalization of the proceedings under sub-section (2-A) and the said powers, functions and duties of the President during the period of such ceasing, shall be exercised, performed and discharged by the District Magistrate or an officer nominated by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector.
From the plain reading of such proviso it appears to us that a simultaneous action for the purpose of ceasing and issuance of show cause can be taken. A recent Division Bench Judgment has been shown to this court in Writ-C No.45362 of 2011, Sardar Javed Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others dated 2.9.2011 in which it was held that there is no necessity of issuing a separate order for ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and if the State Government is satisfied that the charges do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima-facie guilty of any of the charges, the cessation of financial and administrative powers takes place automatically.
The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench, specially paragraph 104 and 133 therein, to establish his case on the basis of objective satisfaction for issuance of show cause where principles of natural justice can be attracted. We also held similarly in our judgment reported in 2008 (1) ESC 407 (All) (DB), Imran Masood Vs. State of U.P. and others in which one of us (Amitava Lala, J) was member which was referred before the Full Bench by saying that the allegations do not appear to be groundless, means it requires lowest level of sufficiency. Therefore, there is no dearth of power of the State to come to conclusion whether there is a sufficient material for their satisfaction to issue show cause as well as cease the power of the petitioner. It can be done simultaneously even before the prima-facie satisfaction for issuance of show cause. Factually a notice was issued by the authority on 18.7.2011 and the petitioner appeared as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
According to us, satisfying the test of such requirement of minimum sufficiency, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed at the stage of admission on contest, however, without imposing any cost.
Passing of this order will in no way affect the right of the petitioner to pursue his case for early disposal in view of completion of his term on 15.11.2011.
(Justice Amitava Lala) I agree.
(Justice V.K. Mathur) Dated:18th October, 2011 T. Sinha