- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner, who is Upar Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the three orders passed by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Nigam, one of which is dated 2-3-1996 and the other two are dated 16-3-1996. By order dated 2-3-1996 the petitioner has been divested of all his powers and functions excepting the power to sign his own salary bill. By the second order dated 16-3-1996 the earlier order of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari delegating some of his powers and functions to the petitioner has been cancelled. By the third order of the same date the clerical staff of. the petitioner's office have been attached to the other office.
(2.) THE respondents have filed counter and supplementary counter-affidav'its and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has raised serious allegations of mala fide and extraneous consideration against the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. Petitioner has also filed first information report againbt Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has also raised serious allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. Even in one of the impugned orders passed on 2-3-1996 it has been mentioned that the petitioner is indulging in local politics and is dividing the employees of Nagar Nigam on extraneous considerations. There are also allegations of causing financial loss to the Nagar Nigam against petitioner. Writ petition, counter and supplementary counter-affidavits as well as rejoiner-affidavit contain allegations of very serious nature levelled against each other by the petitioner and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. Petitioner has also said to have sent some complaint against Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to the Secretary of the concerned Department. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari ami the Upar Mukhya Nagaf Adhifcari, who are the first two top executive officers of the Nigam, are levelling serious allegations of mala fide, misconduct and mismanagement against each other. From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed thereto, it is quite apparent that there are not only strained relations between the two but the position has reached to such a point that both of them cannot work together. It is a serious matter which adversely affects the working of the Nagar Nigam which runs the local Self-Government in an important city like Allahabad. The matter requires immediate attention and intervention of the State Government. Section 537 of the U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 contains such a provision when the Government can act and interfere. The con troversy of the nature involved in this petition specially in view of the allegations which have bean levelled by the petitioner and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari against each other can more appropriately be dealt with and resolved by the State Government. The remedy under Section 537 of the aforesaid Act being efficacious remedy, the petitioner should have approached the State Government before approaching this Court for appropriate relief. Apart from Section 537, this is a fit case where this matter should be sent to the Government for resolving the controversy and for passing appropriate order in connection therewith, because it is the State Government which has appointed both the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 as Upar Mukhya Nagaf Adhikari and Mukhya Nagar Adhikari respectively and it is also their 'controlling authority. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case to interfere with the impugned orders at this stage.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, this petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner will have the liberty to file a representation before the State Government against the impugned orders and if such a representation is filed alongwith certified copy of this order within fifteen days from today the same shall be decided by the Gov ernment within three weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;