- (1.) D. R. Chaudhary, J. The petitioner Smt. Damyanti Singh has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 5-4-99 served on 15-4-99 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure 25 to the writ petition) under Section 48 (2) (a) (b) (vi) and (vii) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') removing the petitioner from the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Farruk habad.
(2.) FACTS leading to the controversy are that the petitioner was elected as Presi dent of Nagar Palika Parishad, Farruk habad in December, 1995. One of the Cor porators made some complaint dated 31-10- 96 against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint aforesaid Respondent No. 1 directed the District Magistrate, Far rukhabad to enquire into the matter and submit the report. Accordingly the City Magistrate submitted his enquiry report dated 28-3-97 which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate sent his report alongwith the enquiry report to the Government with the recommenda tion to take appropriate action against the petitioner and the employees whose ap pointments were irregular. Respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice dated 22-4-97 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 30-6-97 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition ). The Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 4-7-97 under Section 48 (2) (a) of the Act removing the petitioner from the post of President. The Stationer challenged the order dated 4-7-7 by filing a Writ Petition No. 22600 of 1997. This Court by means of an interim order dated 15-7-97 stayed the operation of the removal order dated 4-7-97. In para 13 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the concerned Minister who visited Farrukhabad City, made a statement that the steps will be taken soon for removal of the petitioner again. This statement was published in the daily news paper, a copy of whieh has been filed as Annexure 14 to the writ petition. Suddenly a show-cause notice dated 28-8-98 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her interim reply dated 31-10-98 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition) as the original record was not supplied to the petitioner. On the receipt of the show-cause notice the petitioner for the first time came to know that on filing of complaint by a cor porator Sudhanshu Dull Dwivedi, some enquiry was held and enquiry report dated 19-6-97 was submitted to the District Magistrate. The case of the petitioner is that enquiry report dated 19-6-97 has been made behind her back and was prepared to punish the petitioner again as the earlier order of removal has been stayed by this Court. The petitioner, however, con tinued in her efforts to obtain original record for submitting final reply to the show-cause notice aforesaid. The Respon dent No. 1 also sent letter dated 2-2-99 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) to the District Magistrate to supply original record and to obtain final reply and to send the same with his comments. Nothing was done by the District Magistrate in com pliance of the aforesaid letter. The last effort was made on 15-4-99. The petitioner was not supplied with the original record on one ground or the other and ultimately on 15- 4-99 the impugned order was served removing her from the post of President. This order as it appears, has been passed under Section 48 (2) (a) (b) (vi) (vii) of the Act.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner apprehended that the writ petition would become infructuous in case the fresh election of the President is not stayed by this Court. On 23-4-99 this Court passed an order that in case the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside then the fresh election would automatically be illegal. On 1-6-99 another order was passed by this Court to the effect that Respondent No. 1 shall not notify the result of the election. However, fresh election was completed and one Dr. Rajni Sarin has been elected as President. Since the notification of the result was stayed by this Court. The newly elected President, Dr. Rajni Sarin approached this Court, Luck-now Bench by tiling a Writ Petition No. 2749 MD of 1999. This petition was dis posed of by a consent order dated 25-6-99 wherein it was held that there is no bar to declare the result under Rule 30, a copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the application dated 7-5-99. This Court by an order dated 8-7-99 directed the parties to maintain status ciao as on 1-6-99. In pursuance of the order dated 25-6-99 passed in Writ Petition No. 2749 (MB)/99 the result was declared and the oath was administered on 1 -7-99 to the newly elected President.;