JUDGMENT Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - The petitioner was appointed Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Hapur, in December 1931. In October 1953 the new Board was elected and Sri Tara Chand Modi, opposite party No. 3, was elected President of the Board. On 7th November a vote of no confidence was passed against him. Under the orders of this Court the operation of the order was stayed as the proceedings of the meeting were challenged by means of a writ petition by Sri Tara Chand Modi. On 19-2-1957 a letter was sent by the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Meerut, to the Petitioner that the President should be deemed to be incapacitated from functioning as a President and u/s 47A of the Municipalities Act the Vice President should look after the affairs of the Board. The Senior Vice President, Sri Abdul Rashid started functioning though Sri Tara Chand Modi, opposite party No. 3, continued to assert his right to function as as the President of the Board. On 24-3-1957 Sri Abdul Rashid, the Senior Vice President resigned from his office. The State Government by letter dated 27-4-1957 in the exercise of its powers u/s 47A(2) of the Municipalities Act removed Sri Tara Chand Modi from the office of the President of the Municipal Board with effect from 29-4-1957. On 3-5-1957 Sri Tara Chand Modi filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the State Government removing him from the office of the President. It should also be pointed out that the petition filed by Sri Tara Chand Modi challenging the validity of the resolution of 7-11-1956 was ultimately dismissed by this Court and the order of Hon'ble Single Judge was confirmed in Special Appeal by a Bench. The prayer for the interim relief in the second writ petition filed by Sri Tara Chand Modi challenging the order of the removal by the State Government was rejected on 8-5-1957. On 4-5-1957 Shri Mahesh Chandra, opposite party No. 4, was, however, elected Vice President by the Board by a Special resolution and according to the Petitioner, provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 54A were not complied with in the election of Shri Mahesh Chandra. On 24-5-1957 an application was made by Shri Tara Chand Modi for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of this Court refusing interim relief to him. On 24-5-1957 an application was made by Shri Tara Chand Modi for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of this Court refusing interim relief to him. On 3-6-1957 the application for interim relief in the application for special leave was heard and operation of the removal order of the State Government dated 27-4-1957 was stayed. After the stay order had been granted by the Supreme Court Shri Tara Chand Modi asserted his right to function as president of the Board. On 9-6-57 the Petitioner applied for a week's leave with effect from 10-6-57 which was granted. The Medical Officer of Health was asked to officiate as Executive Officer during his absence. On 11-6-57 Shri Mahesh Chandra, however, cancelled the order regarding the Medical Officer of Health to Officiate in the absence of the Petitioner and directed the Head Clerk" of the Board, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goel who, according to the Petitioner, was related to the opposite party No. 4, to officiate in the absence of the Petitioner. On a representation made by the Health Officer the District Magistrate directed the Vice Chairman to remove the Head Clerk and entrust the work of the Executive Officer to some other responsible officer. Thereupon opposite party No. 4 asked the Tax Superintendent, suspended by Shri Tara Chand Modi, to officiate in place of the Petitioner. On 18-6-1957 the Petitioner applied for a week's leave on the ground of health and on the same date opposite party No. 4 passed an order framing charges against the Petitioner u/s 69A (1) of the Municipalities Act and placing him under suspension. The said order was served on the Petitioner on 21-6-1957. On 19-6-1957 the telephonic connection sanctioned by the Board at the official residence of the Petitioner was disconnected under the orders of opposite party No. 4. The Petitioner was threatened to vacate the official residence forthwith. On 22-6-1957 the District Magistrate sent a letter to the opposite party No. 4 asking him to place the matter of suspension of the Petitioner before the Board and further holding that the order of suspension of the Petitioner was without jurisdiction. The Petitioner thereupon assumed his duties and started functioning as Executive Officer of the Board. On 22-6-1957 the District Magistrate sent a letter to the opposite party No. 4 asking him to place the matter of suspension of the Petitioner before the Board and further holding that the order of suspension of the Petitioner was without jurisdiction. The Petitioner thereupon assumed his duties and started functioning as Executive Officer of the Board. On 28-6-1957 opposite party No. 4 passed an order appointing opposite party No. 5 Shri Brij Basi Lal as Executive Officer of the Board with effect from the same date. On l-7-1957 the petition for special leave to appeal by Shri Tara Chand Modi came up for hearing before the Supreme Court and by the agreement of the parties the interim stay order was directed to be continued till the disposal of the writ petition was pending in this Court. On 2-7-1957 the Petitioner thereafter sent a letter to the opposite party No. 4 explaining his position and praying for time till 4-8-1957 for furnishing his explanation. On 4-7-57 opposite party No. 3, Shri Tara Chand Modi passed an order reinstating the Petitioner from the date of his suspension with full pay and allowances holding him not guilty and quite innocent and by the same order the services of opposite party No. 5 were dispensed with. On 10-7-1957 opposite party No. 4 sent a telegram to the Petitioner intimating that the State Government had upheld his order suspending the Petitioner and directing him to hand over the official files etc. to the officiating Executive officer. On 11-7-1957 a telegraphic reply was sent by the Petitioner to the opposite party No. 4. On 12-7-1957 the Petitioner received a copy of the letter dated 4-7 1957 sent by the Secretary to the State Government addressed to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, stating therein that the State Government did not propose to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the acting President. On these facts the present petition was filed in this Court on 16-7-1957 u/Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of suspension of the Petitioner passed by opposite party No. 4 on 18-6-57. It was also pointed out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the function of the opposite party No. 4 as Vice President has also been challenged by means of another writ petition filed by a member of the Board. It was also pointed out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the function of the opposite party No. 4 as Vice President has also been challenged by means of another writ petition filed by a member of the Board. After filing of this petition notice was issued. The writ petition filed by Sri Tara Chand Modi challenging the order of the State Government removing him from the presidentship of the Board was rejected by me. In special Appeal, however, the order of the State Government dated 27-4-1957 removing him from the presidentship has been set aside by the order of the Court dated 18-9-1957. 2. Three points were raised by the Petitioner in support of the present petition. Firstly, it was urged by him that as by the order of the Supreme Court the operation of the order of his removal was stayed Shri Tara Chand Modi continued to be the president of the Board and the opposite party No. 4 had no power to suspend the Petitioner u/s 69A of the Municipalities Act. Secondly, it was contended by him that the resignation which was tendered by the Senior Vice President Sri Abdul Rashid on 24-3-1957 was not properly accepted inasmuch as the President alone had a right to accept that resignation. Consequently, the election of Sri Mahesh Prasad as Vice President was itself defective. Even if it be accepted u/s 54A of the Municipalities Act Senior Vice Chairman could be elected the procedure provided under that section was not followed. It was contended that the order passed by opposite party No. 4 suspending the Petitioner was illegal inasmuch as the Vice President had no right to pass an order u/s 69A of the Act and that the order was mala fide. It has also been urged by the Petitioner that in view of the decision of this Court in the Special Appeal by which the order of the removal of Shri Tara Chand Modi has been set aside on the date when the order was passed by opposite party No. 4 Shri Tara Chand Modi was the President and the Opposite party No. 4 had no power to pass the order u/s 69A of the Municipalities Act. It is neither necessary nor proper for me to decide the validity of the election of opposite party No. 4 as a Senior Vice President in this petition. It is neither necessary nor proper for me to decide the validity of the election of opposite party No. 4 as a Senior Vice President in this petition. The election of opposite party No. 4 has been challenged by means of a separate petition and the proper proceedings in which the question of the validity of the election of the opposite party No. 4 can be examined is the said writ petition filed by the member. Moreover, at any rate, he was doubtful as to how far Shri Tara Chand Modi was competent to function as the Chairman at the time when the resignation by Shri Abdul Rashid was tendered. In this view of the matter and as I am deciding the petition on other points raised by the petition it is not necessary to deal with this matter any further, and examine the validity of the election of opposite party No. 4 as the Vice Chairman. 3. As regards the question raised by the Petitioner that Shri Tara Chand Modi in view of the stay order passed by the Supreme(sic) Court was functioning as the Chairman on the date when the order was passed by opposite party No. 4 it is not necessary to base my decision on that question. There is some controversy between the parties as to what was the actual order of stay passed by the Supreme Court; whether the effect of the Supreme Court order was to maintain the status quo or the only effect of the order was that the operation of the order of the removal was stayed. The contention raised by the opposite party is that u/s 47A, Sub-section (2) on the expiry of three days from the date of communication the President was incapacitated to function. That legal consequence which followed from the failure of the president to resign within a certain period will not be affected by the stay order passed by the Supreme Court staying the operation of the removal order passed by the State Government u/s 47A (2) The question is a very doubtful one. As there is a controversy between the parties with regard to the actual order of stay passed by the Supreme Court, I would therefore not base my opinion on this controversial question. 4. As there is a controversy between the parties with regard to the actual order of stay passed by the Supreme Court, I would therefore not base my opinion on this controversial question. 4. As regards the point now raised by the Petitioner that in view of the order passed in the Special Appeal setting aside the removal order passed by the State Government, it was urged by the counsel for the petition that he would not in the circumstances of the present case press that point. The objection with regard to this contention raised by the opposite parties was that the judgment in the Special Appeal related to the order of removal passed by the State Government; it left undecided the question as to whether u/s 47A (2) the Chairman was incapacitated to function or not. If the reasoning on which the Bench has held that the order of removal was illegal is accepted it may follow that the president was not incapacitated to function but if the observations made by the Bench in the earlier writ petition filed by Sri Tara Chand Modi are accepted as correct law it can be held that the president was incapacitated to function. In this view of the matter there appears to be a conflict between these two decisions and opposite parties contended that the proper course for me is to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Realising this position the Learned Counsel for the petition has contended that he does not want to base his present petition on that ground alone. I do not therefore decide this question. 5. Coming to the main point urged by the Petitioner it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Municipalities Act. S. 50 of the Act provides: Following powers, duties and functions of a board may be exercised, and shall be performed or discharged, by the President of the Board and not otherwise, namely- (a) the powers vested in the President by Sections 70 and 74 and the provision to Sections 75 and 76 to appoint, punish or dismiss servants of the board; (b) the determination, in accordance with any regulation in this behalf, of questions arising in respect of the service, transfer, leave, pay, privileges and allowances of servants of the board. S. 55 provides: A Vice President shall, in the absence of the President from a meeting of the board and unless prevented by reasonable cause preside, regulate the conduct of business, and maintain and enforce order, at the meeting and when so presiding may exercise the powers specified in S. 91. (b) shall during the vacancy in the office of President or the incapacity or temporary absence of the President, perform any other duty and, when occasion arises, exercise any other power of the President. (c) shall at any time perform any duty and exercise, when occasion arises, any powers delegated to him by the President u/s 53. 6. S. 69A reads as follows: It the president has reasons to believe that the executive officer or the secretary or any of the other officers of the board appointed u/s 68, is corrupt or has persistently failed in the discharge of his duties or is otherwise guilty of misconduct, he may frame charges against him and where he is satisfied that it is so necessary, he may for reasons to be recorded, suspend him pending the completion of the enquiry. 7. The special power of suspension has been given to the President u/s 69A pending an enquiry into the charges framed against the executive officer and the contention of the Petitioner is that this order could only be passed by the President and not by the Vice President when acting in absence of the President. S. 55 (b) no doubt gives power to the Vice President to perform any duty of the President when he is incapacitated but that only gives him power to perform the duties of the President given in S 50 and 51 of the Municipalities Act. It does not give him a right to pass an order which the President alone can u/s 69A. As I have said it is power in the nature of emergency power conferred upon the President and that cannot be regarded as one of the normal duties cast upon the President nor can it be said to be an exercise of the power contemplated u/s 55 (b). As I have said it is power in the nature of emergency power conferred upon the President and that cannot be regarded as one of the normal duties cast upon the President nor can it be said to be an exercise of the power contemplated u/s 55 (b). Even if it is accepted that the result of the passing of the non-confidence resolution was that the President was incapacitated within the meaning of S. 55 in view of the provisions of S. 47 (2) in nay opinion the Vice President had no power to pass an order u/ S. 69A suspending the Petitioner pending enquiry into charges framed against him and the order passed therefore was without jurisdiction. It was contended by the opposite party that the Petitioner has suppressed certain facts which disentitle him to a relief u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. I do not think that there has been any material suppression of facts by the Petitioner. The only ground urged by the opposite party is that the Petitioner has wrongly stated that the procedure u/3. 54A was not gone into in this case although it was not a case of S. 54A at all. As has been urged by the counsel for the Petitioner it may be that in the opinion of this Court S. 54B may not apply but it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not entitled to urge that S. 54B did apply and if it did the procedure u/s 5 B was not followed: it cannot be said that there was any suppression of material facts by the Petitioner so as to disentitle him to a relief. It was then urged by the Petitioner that the order under the circumstances of the case is a mala fide order and should be set aside by this Court. It is significant to note that the Vice President himself was elected on 4-5-1957. The resolution of non confidence was passed on 7-11-1956. On 19-2-1957 the Addl. District Magistrate asked the President to cease to function. The Vice President Sri Abdul Rashid started functioning thereafter and on 24(sic)-3-1957 he tendered his resignation and on 27-4-1957 the order of removal of the President is passed by the State Govt. and on 4-5-1957 Sri Mahesh Chandra is elected as a Vice President. On 19-2-1957 the Addl. District Magistrate asked the President to cease to function. The Vice President Sri Abdul Rashid started functioning thereafter and on 24(sic)-3-1957 he tendered his resignation and on 27-4-1957 the order of removal of the President is passed by the State Govt. and on 4-5-1957 Sri Mahesh Chandra is elected as a Vice President. On 9-6-1957 the Petitioner applied for a weeks' leave with effect from the 10th June and before his leave could expire on 18-6-1957 the opposite party No. 4 passed an order suspending the Petitioner The circumstances in which this order was passed by the opposite party No. 4 legitimately leads to the inference that the order was not a bona fide. There is a controversy going on as to who was entitled to function as the President. The President had further challenged the Orders passed by the State Govt. in this Court. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the Vice President had any occasion to watch the work of the Petitioner Moreover, from the charges it is also clear that the main ground on which the petitions was suspended was that he was in league with the President Sri Tara Chand Modi It is unfortunate that the dispute between the President and other members of the Board and the party friction should recoil on its employees. It affects the efficient working of the Board if the party politics results in the dismissal or appointment of the employees. But the charges themselves clearly prove that the action has been taken not on the ground that the Vice President had occasion to independently apply his mind to the conduct of the Petitioner but because he belonged to the party of the president against whom no confidence resolution had been passed at the instance of the opposite party No. 4 and other members of the Board. It is also clear from the averments in the counter affidavit contained in para 20 that the Vice President acted u/s 69A as in his opinion the present Petitioner was associated with Sri Tara Chand Modi. Para 20 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: That contents of para 31 of the affidavit under reply are denied. In fact Sri Agarwal had associated himself with Sri Modi and had created great havoc in the municipal Board in conspiracy with Sri Modi. Para 20 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: That contents of para 31 of the affidavit under reply are denied. In fact Sri Agarwal had associated himself with Sri Modi and had created great havoc in the municipal Board in conspiracy with Sri Modi. His fear was that now Sri Modi is turned out, all his doings will be exposed and has fear has come true. In fact Sri Agarwal is unnecessarily and without authority trying to harass the Municipal Board itself in the interest of Sri Modi and himself instead of obeying the orders passed by the acting President. 8. Even if the fact is admitted that Sri Agarwal associated with Sri Modi in the past that by itself can be no ground for assuming that he was not acting in the interest of the Board and that assertion by itself indicates that as the order passed by the acting President was not bona fide. It was strenuously contended by the opposite party that no facts have been set out in clear terms which make out a case of mala fide. The facts have been set out by the Petitioner in his affidavit He has also attacked the order on the ground of mala fide. The question is one of inference to be draw from certain set of facts given in the affidavit and it is open to this Court to examine the facts which have been set out by the parties in their respective affidavits and come to its own conclusion. In view of the circumstances pointed out by me and with regard to which there is no controversy legitimate inference can be drawn that the order passed by the acting President was not bona fide. 9. In the result, therefore, I allow this petition, quash the order of suspension passed by opposite party No 4 on 18 6-1957. In the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their own costs.