IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16507 of 2009 1. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O RAVINDRA NARAYAN SINGH R/O MOH-BRAHAMPURA, P.S-BRAHMPURA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 2. KARAN KUMAR S/O LATE MADAN KISHORE SINGH R/O VILL- BRAHAMPURA, P.S- PAROO DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY ANIMAL & FISHRY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 3.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are stated to have been elected as an Executive Member of the District Animal Cruelty Prevention Society, Muzaffarpur on 10.10.2008. Under the laws of the society the tenure is for five years. Clause-4 dealing with termination of membership relevant for the present controversy stipulates that a member may be removed in the event of his being convicted by a Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 23.7.2009 unseating them from the committee on the ground that they have been made an accused in a criminal case. The submission is that without conviction removal on the ground of being made an accused in a criminal case was not permissible under the Rules. In any event, the petitioners have now 2 been acquitted in the case also on 28.10.2010. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit finds it difficult to defend the ouster of the petitioners on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order dated 23.7.2009. He, however, seeks to persuade from the averments made in the counter affidavit that the very induction of the petitioners as members was contrary to the procedure. In so far as the present controversy is concerned, it has to be tested in light of the recitals contained in the impugned order dated 23.7.2009 only. If the order for removal mentions one ground, the respondents cannot be permitted to urge another ground in the counter affidavit to support the impugned order. The impugned order either stands or fails on basis of the recitals contained therein. If the laws provides for ouster only upon conviction, mere institution of Police case shall not be sufficient justification for ouster by exercise of power under the laws regulating membership. The order dated 23.7.2009 is therefore not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)