S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) Prem Kumar Balmiki, Sint. Tarini Pandey and Smt. Rabia Khatoon, nominated members of the Municipal Board, Gonda, (for short, Board') have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge two notifications issued by the State Government on 5-3-1991 under the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (Act 11 of 1916, (for short, Act'). By one notification nomination of the petitioners as members of the Board has been cancelled and by the other notification Smt. Asha Kant Srivastava, Smt. Shahla Naseer and Sri Shyam Lal Balmiki have been nominated in place of the petitioners. In short, the petitioners are aggrieved by their ouster from the membership of the Board.
(2.) The facts about which there is no dispute between tho parties are as follows : Gonda is a city within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act. It has a Municipal Board which is constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Some members of the Board are elected and some are nominated by the State Government. Last election for constituting the Board was held in November, 1988 when twenty members were elected. Amongst the elected members there was no woman and no member belonging to Safai Mazdoor Class. Therefore, in exercise of the power available under the First and Third provisos to Section 9 of the Act the State Government nominated Smt. Asha Kant Srivastava, opposite-party No. 3 as a representative of women and Sri Shyam Lal Balmiki, opposite-party No. 5, as representative of Safai Mazdoor class to the Board through notification dated 4-1-1989. On 19-2-1990 the State Government issued notification cancelling all nominations of women and Safai Mc.zdoors to various Municipal Boards of the State. Thereafter the present three petitioners were nominated through notification dated 18-4-1990. When the petitioners had served barely for about one year the impugned notifications were issued resulting in the ouster of the present petitioners and induction of opposite-parties 3 to 5 in their place.
(3.) The two notifications dated 5-3-1991 have been challenged on the following grounds ; - (i) The term of the nominated members of the Board, as of elected members of the Board, is co-terminus with the term of Board and it can be curtailed only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The only provision for removal of a member of the Board is Section 40 which is not attrActed. (ii) The Act contains specific provisions for removal of President and members of the Board and for curtailing the term of the Board and therefore Section 21 of the General Clauses Act which has been invoked in the first notification is not applicable ; and (iii) there is repugnance between the Fourth proviso to Section 9 and Section 38 of the Act. (iv) Order is hit by Article 14 and principles of natural justice.;