B. Dikshit, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions ,'are in respect of dispute to the office of Vice-chairman of Town Area Jhansi, District Allahabad (in short 'Vice-Chairman'). As the subject matter of dispute is office of the Vice-Chairman and common questions of facts and iaw arise, the two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The Writ Petition No. 12487/1992 is the leading case. Writ Petition No. 12487/1992.
(2.) THE essential facts are that after general election in November 1988 a new Town Area Committee of Town Area jhunsi (In short Town Area Committee) was constituted. THE Town Area Committee constituted had petitioner Ramesh Chandra Agarwal as Chairman, 9 elected members and three nominated members, thus the initial strength of Town Area Committee was thirteen Subsequently, one of the members died and Ramesh Chandra Agarwal resigned from the office of Chairman on 10-7-1991 after bringing of a motion of no confidence. This reduced the strength of Town Area Committee to eleven members. THE resignation of Chairman Ramesh Chandra Agarwal also gave rise to vacancy in the office of Chairman, which vacancy still exists as no election to fill up the vacancy has been held. At the time of resignation of Chairman Ramesh Chandra Agarwal petitioner was holding the office of Vice-Chairman and therefore he had to discharge duties of Chairman, which he started in accordance with section 8-B '4) of U. P. Town Area Act, 1914 (in short "Town Area Act'). It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner was entitled to discharge duties of Chairman till expiry of his term as Vice-Chairman. THE term of petitioner in respect of office of Vice-Chairman expired on 13-4-1992 as he was elected Vice-Chairman on 14-9-1991. Before expiry of term of petitioner as Vice-Chairman of the Town Area, the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 28-3-1992 passed an order purporting to be in exercise of power under section 54-A of U. P. Municipalities Act, whereby he authorised Sub-Divisional Officer Phulpur Allahabad in accordance with section 3-A (6) of the Town Area Act to discharge the functions of Chairman until Vice-Chairman is elected. THE District Magistrate indicated in the order that period of one year of petitioner was going to expire on 14-4-1991. THE present controversy has arisen as the District Magistrate, authorised Sub-Divisional Officer Phulpur to perform functions and discharge duties of Chairman. THE Sub-Divisional Officer Phulpur on 8-4-1992, being approached by petitioner that petitioner has been elected Vice-Chairman for a further period of one year, expressed that he will be performing functions of Chairman in view of order of District Magistrate. As petitioner claims that he has been elected Vice-Chairman by Town Area Committee on 28-3-1992 for a further period of one year and he is entitled to continue in office as Vice Chairman for another year with effect from 14-4-1992, while the respondents did not accept said claim of petitioner that filing of this petition became inevitable. To Justify his election for another year the petitioner's claim is that the Town Area Committee resolved to hold election of Vice-Chairman on 10-3-92 for next one year but on 10-3-1992 the meeting for election has to be adjourned for want of quorum and 28-3-1992 was fixed as the next date for election. According to petitioner the election to the office of Vice-Chairman on 28-3-1992 by Town Area Committee at which petitioner was elected for next year. THE petitioner claims that the order dated '28-3-1992 was passed by District Magistrate in anticipation that no election of Vice-Chairman will be held by 13-4-1992, but when petitioner apprised Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulpur on 8-4-1992 about himself being elected as Vice Chairman by Town Area Committee on 28-3-1992, the Sub -Divisional Officer 'expressed that as there was specific direction of the District Magistrate, therefore, he had no option bat to take over charge of Chairman from petitioner on 14-4-1992. Thus the expression of Sub-Divisional Officer to take charge from petitioner of Chairman has given rise to this writ petition which was filed on 13-4-92. The petitioner has claimed in Writ Petition that he is elected Vice-Chairman for next year and therefore he is entitled to discharge duties of Chairman even after 13-4-1992 till Chairman is elected. The petitioner has filed writ petition seeking relief for quashing of the order of the District Magistrate dated 28-3-1992 whereby he authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulpur, Allahabad to discharge the functions of Chairman till Vire-Chairman is elected. The petitioner has also prayed for issue of Writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents from interfering in his functions as Vice-Chairman on the basis of order of District Magistrate dated 28-3-1992. In this petition the petitioner Impleaded District Magistrate, Allahabad, Sub-Divisional Officer Phulpur, Allahabad, and Additional District Magistrate (Rural Area) Allahabad as respondents. No private party has been impleaded as respondent in writ petition. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. The case set op by respondents is that petitioner was elected Vice-Chairman for one year on 14-4-1991 and vacancy In the office of Chairman occurred on 10-7-1991 when he was Vice-Chairman and therefore by virtue of his office as Vice-Chairman the petitioner started discharging functions of Chairman from the date of occurrence of vacancy. The respondents case further is that the term of petitioner as Vice-Chairman expired with effiux of time on 13-4-1992 with the end of his term as Vice-Chairman Respondents claim the alleged election of 2S-3-1992 set op by petitioner to the office of Vice-Chairman of Town Area Committee was invalid and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to exercise power and discharge functions of Chairman. It is admitted case of parties that no election to the office of Chairman has been held since occurrence of vacancy on 10-7-1991. The respondents have Justified their stand that the order of District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 28-3-1992 is liable to be implemented as according to them the election of Vice-Chairman dated 28-3-1992 set up by the petitioner is invalid and therefore the Sub-Divisional Officer Phulpur Is entitled to discharge/perform the functions of the Chairman of Town Area Committee. Writ Petition No. 13225/1992
(3.) THIS petition has been filed by a member of Town Area, namely Mohammad Hanif, seeking issue of writ of Mandamus to District Magistrate, Allahabad and Additional District Magistrate, (Rural Area) Allahabad, for holding fresh election to the office of Vice-Chairman of the Town Area Committee, The Writ Petition was filed on 16-4-1992 claiming that the term of Vice-Chairman expired on 14-4-1992 and as election process has not started as yet, the election of Vioe-Chairman is to be held by respondents in accordance with section 54- A (2) to (9) of the U. P Municipalities Act. Besides District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, the petitioner did not implead anyone else as respondent to the writ petition. During the course of hearing an application was moved by Suresh Chandra Agarwal to implead him as respondent. The application for Impleadment as party was moved by Suresh chandra Agarwal on the ground that he has been elected Vice-Chairman on 28-3-1992 and has 'also taken over charge of the office on 14-4-1992, therefore, he be impleaded as respondent and permitted to contest the Writ Petition. As the case set up by the parties in Writ Petition No. 12487 of 1992 was argued for determining same controversy, the learned counsel for parties relied on facts set out in that petition, therefore no order has been passed on the application for impleadment at earlier stage and the application for impleadment is being disposed of at this stage. First, we would like to dispose of the application for impleadment as parties, moved in the two petitions. In the application moved for impleadment by Ram Lakhan Yadav and Ram Chandra Gupta in Writ Petition No. 12487/1992, the applicants have not disclosed the parentage and address to determine their identity. The applicants have stated in the application for impleadment that it was being fled in view of fasts and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, bat no affidavit has been filed is support of the application. A counter-affidavit in reply to the averments made in the writ petition has been filed by the said applicants but even in that Counter-affidavit nothing has been stated which could Justify the Impleadment of applicants. In the absence of particulars in respect of the identity of the persons as well as Jo the absence of averments in the application for justifying inapleadment, it is not possible to implead said applicants as respondents to oppose the writ petition. The application for impleadment moved by Ram Lakhan Yadav and Ram Chandra Gupta, is, therefore, rejected ' As the subject matter of dispute involved interest of residents of a Town Area and Counter-affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit were exchanged even before hearing the application for impleadment, we permitted Sri Bhagwati Prasad, Counsel for Ram Lakhan Yadav and Ram Chandra Gupta to assist the court by arguing the case on merits The arguments advanced by him were similar to those advanced by the learned Standing Counsel, who represented the respondents. We have considered the arguments of Counsel for the applicants on merits also. So for Writ Petition No. 13225/ 1992 is concerned as Sri Saresh Chandra Agrawal, who is petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12487/1992, has claimed himself to be elected VIce-Chairman holding the charge of the office of Chairman, his application for Impleadment is allowed. No notice has been issued on this writ petition but as complete facts are on record of writ petition No. 12487/1992 and according to Counsel for parties this writ petition" can also be disposed of finally on facts set out therein. therefore, this petition has been heard with the other writ petition without having separate counter-affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit.;