Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a direction be issued to the opposite party No. 1 the State of Uttar Pradesh quashing the notification dated 14 -9 -1956 purporting to be one under Section 40(5) of the Municipalities Act against the Petitioner; further to issue a, writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to proceed on the basis of the charges framed by the State Government under Sections, 40(3) and 40(4) of the UP Municipalities Act.
(2.) THE Petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Board, Firozabad the election held in April 1955 from the reserved Seat for Nai Basti Ward No. X. One Sri Tunda Mal was elected as President by the members. There was some exchange of strong letters between the Petitioner and the President Tunda Mal in connection with certain appointments made by the Executive Officer. On 29 -12 -1955 the Commissioner visited Firozabad and inspected the affairs of the Municipal Board. The Petitioner on the occasion presented a memorandum to the Commissioner stating therein that the President and the members of the majority party in the board were misusing their powers and were mismanaging the affairs of the board. As there was a party fraction going on in the board certain members framed charges against the Petitioner, one of the charges was regarding the letters addressed by the Petitioner to the President, and on 29 -12 -1955. When the Commissioner visited the board the Petitioner requested him to inspect the locality situate in Nai Basti Ward and invited his attention to the deplorable sanitary conditions of the locality. There was a certain procession organized by the Petitioner against the Commissioner which annoyed him. A number of other allegations have been made by the Petitioner on which it is contended that the order framing the charges and certain proceedings against him for his removal are mala fide. The board's meeting was held on 20 -1 -1956 for the consideration of the charges framed against him. The meeting could not be held but the President got in the Minutes Book a resolution entered censoring the Petitioner. A controversy was ultimately raised by the Petitioner with regard to the correctness of the minutes. The board's recommendation for taking proceedings against the Petitioner under Section 40(3) was considered by the District Magistrate and he rejected that and advised the board not to insist on taking any such action. On 6 -3 -1956 the Petitioner filed a complaint against the President for defamation. This was however rejected. On 22 -9 -1956 the Tehsildar served the Petitioner with a copy of the charges that were framed by the State Government against the Petitioner and an order of suspension was also served along with that. The proceedings started against the Petitioner and the consequential suspension order which has been passed have been challenged by means of this writ petition. It is not necessary to go in detail into the various allegations which have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Most of the allegations made in the affidavit are to establish the mala fides of the opposite parties. In brief the acts asserted by the Petitioner are that as the Petitioner was opposed in the election by a Congress candidate who was defeated the members had from the very beginning a design to oust him and the President got annoyed with the Petitioner as the Petitioner wrote strong letters to him in connection with the appointments made by the Executive Officer. All those allegations only amount to assertions of mala fides and motive against the President and the members of the board; but they do not to my mind establish any mala fides of the State Government so as to vitiate the proceedings started by the State Government for the removal of the Petitioner under Section 40 of the Municipalities Act.
(3.) THE main contention however raised by the Petitioner is that the charges which have been made against him and on which the removal of the Petitioner is sought have no relation to the grounds on which a member can be removed under Section 40(3) of the Municipalities Act. They go beyond the ambit of the section and the proceedings therefore must be quashed.;