ANJANI KUMAR, SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is elected as President (Chairman) of the Nagar Panchayat concerned, has challenged the order impugned by means of present writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that name of respondents 5 and 6 has been recommended for nomination as member of Nagar Panchayat concerned by the State Government in exercise of power under section 9 (1)(d) of Municipalities Act, 1916 (In short 'the Act'). It is further con­tended that since the respondents 5 and 6 are not the elected members, therefore they cannot be nominated as members by the State Government in exercise of power un­der the aforesaid Act.
(3.) WE have gone through the im­pugned order and the provisions of the aforesaid Act and we do not find that there is any such qualification or disqualification that in case a person, who is not an elected member of the Nagar Panchayat con­cerned, cannot be nominated by the State Government and even the District Magistrate has recorded a finding otherwise that respondents 5 and 6 are the residents of Nagar Panchayat concerned.;