- (1.) THE petitioners are the Chairman of Municipal Committees. Submission of Sri O.P. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioners are entitled to continue and hold the charge occupying the Office of the Chairman of Municipal Committees till successor joins after election. Meaning thereby, the petitioners have right to continue beyond the period of five years for which they were elected.
(2.) PETITIONERS ' counsel relied upon the interim order dated 13.12.2011, passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad in Writ -C No.65013 of 2011 and other connected writ petitions whereby, while passing the interim order dated 13.12.2011, the Division Bench has taken note of Section 15 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, which is reproduced as under: 15. Terms of Mayor. -(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, (a) the term of office of a Mayor shall be co -terminus with the term of the Corporation; (b) [* * *] (2) The term of office of a Mayor or an elected to fill a casual vacancy shall be the remainder of the term of office of his predecessor. (3) A mayor shall, unless he resigns or ceases to be qualified or becomes disqualified, continue in office until his successor assumes office as Mayor as the case may be.
(3.) A plain reading of sub -section (3) of Section 15 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 reveals that a Mayor shall unless he resigns or ceases to be qualified or becomes disqualified, continue in Office until his successor assumes office as Mayor as the case may be. At the threshold of sub -section (3) of Section 15 (supra), the Division Bench at Allahabad passed the interim order dated 13.12.2011 (supra), permitting the Mayor of respective Municipal Corporations to continue in Office till the election person in the forthcoming election resumes duty. While deciding the writ petition with regard to Municipalities, by the judgment and order dated 5.12.2011 in Writ Petition No.11226 (M/B) of 2011, we have held that tenure of Chairman or members of Municipal Board cannot be extended beyond the period of five years while interpreting Article 243 -U of the Constitution. A Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed the judgment of this Court. Accordingly, there appears to be no good ground to entertain the present writ petition that too, on the ground which has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court by the aforesaid judgment dated 5.12.2011 (supra).;