The Allahabad High Court has stayed the implementation of the order dated 27 July 23 issued by the state government against Ashish Sharma, former chairman of Municipal Council Hathras, and has sought response from the state government, the complainant and the municipal council on the petition within six weeks.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ashish Sharma.
In the earlier petition filed by the petitioner the recovery was quashed by the Court in Writ Petition permitting the State to proceed afresh, in accordance with law. Impugned order has now been passed against the petitioner by the State which is assailed in the petition on the ground that the earlier defect, on account of which the recovery was quashed, has not been cured.
Attention of the Court has been invited to UP Municipal Board Surcharge Rules, 1948 which contains the procedure to be followed for determination of surcharge. There is also a right of appeal before the State Government under the Rules.
The contention is that without following the procedure stipulated in Rule 3 and 4, the Principal Secretary of the State, who happens to be the appellate authority, has passed the order of surcharge which not only takes away the right of appeal available to petitioner but the order is otherwise wholly arbitrary due to non-adherence to the provisions contained in Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1948.
Submission is that in the process reasonable opportunity of hearing has been denied to the petitioner.
The Court observed that the matter requires consideration.
The Court granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit for the respondents and two weeks time to file Rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.
“Considering the arguments advanced, it is provided that till further orders of the Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the State Government shall be kept in abeyance. Liberty, however, stands reserved to the State to proceed afresh, in accordance with the Rules of 1948”, the Court ordered.