IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 932 of 2010 (M/S) Dinesh Joshi S/o Late Sri Kamla Nand Joshi & others. ……Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. …….Respondents Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocates for petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No. 1. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Subhash Tyagi, Advocate for intervener. Dated:-10-11-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties agreed to hear the petition finally and dispose of the same at the admission stage itself. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/Notification dated 24.05.2010, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby execution of the resolutions, passed in the meeting held on 01.05.2010, has been stayed. According to the petitioners, election of Chair Persons of Sub-Committees was to be conducted by the Municipal Board, Haridwar, in compliance of this Court’s order dated 18.03.2010, passed in writ petition No. 2184 of 2009, Smt. Karuna Sharma and others Vs. Chairman Nagar Palika and others. Election of the Chair Persons was notified and held on 01.05.2010. Petitioners were declared elected vide resolution No. 336. During the election proceedings, some of the persons, who were active workers of the ruling party 2 including a non member of Nagar Palika, Haridwar, created hindrance in the proceedings due to which further proceedings of the meeting dated 01.05.2010, were kept in abeyance by Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar. Since the election was conducted in accordance with law and the Chairpersons of the Sub Committees were elected and approved in the meeting, the respondents have no jurisdiction to stop the execution of the resolution of meeting held on 01.05.2010. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is stated in para-6 that Commissioner, Garhwal was to inquire into the matter by the letter dated 06.05.2010 and was yet to submit the report and Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar took some time in submitting the report. It is further stated that there was wide publicity in the Electronic and Print Media of the incident, which resulted in lowering down the image of the Department. On account of this, in the large public interest the order dated 24.05.2010 was passed by the State Government prohibiting the execution of the proposal nos. 334, 335 and 336 of the meeting of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar, held on 01.05.2010. Apart from this, stand has been taken that as per the provision of Section 34 (1-B), the State Government has power to prohibit execution of resolution, passed by the Municipal Board. Said Section provides as under:- “(1-B)- The State Government may, of its own motion or on report or complaint received by order prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolution or order passed or made under this or any other enactment by a board or a committee of a board or a joint committee or any officer or servant of a board of a joint committee, if in its opinion such resolution or order is prejudicial to the public interest or has been passed or made in abuse of powers or flagrant breach of any provision of any law for the time being in force, and may prohibit the doing or continuance by any person of any act in pursuance of or under cover of such resolution or order.” 3 After perusal of the impugned order dated 24.05.2010, it reveals that prior to any enquiry and only on the basis of the complaint received, the State Government has taken decision dated 01.05.2010 and prima facie held that resolution was not passed in accordance with rules and stayed the execution of the same. The order dated 01.05.2010 passed by the State Government is illegal in nature as no reasons have been assigned as to how abuse of powers or flagrant breach of any provision of any law for the time being in force has been committed. Meeting dated 01.05.2010 was held pursuant to the direction of this Court’s order dated 18.03.2010, whereby respondents were directed to conduct an election of Chairpersons of Sub- Committees afresh. Therefore, prima facie there is no breach of abuse of power by the Board. The only question which was to be scrutinized by the State Government was as to whether election was conducted as per provision of Rule 104(B) or not. There is not a single whisper in the impugned order that how could the Government stay the execution of the resolution after coming to the conclusion that there was a breach of provision of law without any prior enquiry or without obtaining report from the Commissioner (Prescribed Authority). Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, Government would be at liberty to make further enquiry into the matter and may pass a reasoned and speaking order after due enquiry. (B.S.Verma, J.) 10-11-2010 S 4