HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 06 of 2009 (M/S) Mohd. Akram ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7. 16th February, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice dated 18th December, 2008. Admittedly the petitioner is an elected Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar, District Nainital. The show cause notice dated 18th December, 2008 has been issued by the Secretary, Urban Development, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petition is highly premature as it is against the show cause notice only and the petitioner has a remedy to state his grievance before the authority concerned which has issued the show cause notice. Arguments have also been advanced in this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the validity of Section 48 (2) (b) (xvii) of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 as amended in the State of Uttarakhand. However, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the Act. If and when such a challenge is made 2 by the petitioner, it is needless to say that the same will go before the appropriate Court. The petitioner has not challenged the jurisdiction of the authority which has issued the show cause notice to him. Admittedly, the Secretary, Urban Development, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun has given the show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 48 (2) (b) (xvii) of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 as amended in the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, the concerned authority which has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner is well within its statutory power to issue such a show cause notice. Therefore, under the present circumstances, the petitioner must show cause to the concerned authority and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not making any observation on the merit of the case. All the same, the petitioner is free to avail the remedy, in case the need arises, after he has shown cause to the concerned authority and the order has been passed by the concerned authority on the basis of the reply made by the petitioner regarding show-cause notice dated 18th December, 2008. With these observations, writ petition is dismissed. Certified copy of the order be issued within twenty four hours. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 2.1.2009 Avneet 3 The petitioner has not challenged the jurisdiction of the authority which has issued the show cause notice to him. Admittedly, the Secretary, Urban Development, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun has given the show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 48 (2) (b) (xvii) of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 as amended in the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, the concerned authority which has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner is well within statutory power to issue such a show cause notice. Therefore, under the present circumstances, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to show cause to the concerned authority and, therefore, the writ petition being premature is liable to be dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not making any observation on the merit of the case. 4