Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner Sri Iqbal Ahmad is a member of the Town Area Committee, Sikandarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Committee), The said Committee has been superseded by the State Government under Section 36 of the U. P. Town Areas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by means of an order dated 8th of March, 1960, published in the issue of the State Gazette dated 19th March, 1960. The said order reads as follows : "Whereas the Governor is satisfied that the Town Area Committee, Sikandarpur, district Ballia has persistently made default in the performance Of its duties imposed on it under the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 (Act II of 1914), viz., the Committee failed in preparing the assessment list for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 within the time prescribed by the rules, the Committee failed to utilise the road grant or move for extension of time limit for utilising the same within the time allowed, it failed to finalise its budget estimates for the year 1958-59 by the due date, the actual cash balance prescribed under Rule 58 of the Town Area Account Rules has not been maintained, the sanitary arrangements have been neglected in the Town Area, and further the Committee has also abused its powers; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Governor is pleased to declare the aforesaid committee to be in default and to have abused its powers and to supersede the same with effect from the date of publication of this notification in official Gazette for a period of one year or until the next general elections in Town Areas, whichever is earlier."
(2.) By a subsequent notification the period of supersession has been extended by another year. The prayer in the petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the Order of the State Government dated 8th of March, 1960, for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to in any manner interfere with the functioning of the Committee and for the usual further or other reliefs.
(3.) Mr. Khare the learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions before me which are : (.1) that the Committee was not given an opportunity of furnishing an explanation or showing cause against the order of supersession; (2) that the charges framed are vague; and (3) that Section 36 of the Act is unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.;