JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a direction be issued to the opposite party No. 1 the State of Uttar Pradesh quashing the notification dated 14-9-1956 purporting to be one u/s 40(5) of the Municipalities Act against the Petitioner; further to issue a, writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to proceed on the basis of the charges framed by the State Government under Sections, 40(3) and 40(4) of the UP Municipalities Act. 2. The Petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Board, Firozabad the election held in April 1955 from the reserved Seat for Nai Basti Ward No. X. One Sri Tunda Mal was elected as President by the members. There was some exchange of strong letters between the Petitioner and the President Tunda Mal in connection with certain appointments made by the Executive Officer. On 29-12-1955 the Commissioner visited Firozabad and inspected the affairs of the Municipal Board. The Petitioner on the occasion presented a memorandum to the Commissioner stating therein that the President and the members of the majority party in the board were misusing their powers and were mismanaging the affairs of the board. As there was a party fraction going on in the board certain members framed charges against the Petitioner, one of the charges was regarding the letters addressed by the Petitioner to the President, and on 29-12-1955. When the Commissioner visited the board the Petitioner requested him to inspect the locality situate in Nai Basti Ward and invited his attention to the deplorable sanitary conditions of the locality. There was a certain procession organized by the Petitioner against the Commissioner which annoyed him. A number of other allegations have been made by the Petitioner on which it is contended that the order framing the charges and certain proceedings against him for his removal are mala fide. The board's meeting was held on 20-1-1956 for the consideration of the charges framed against him. The meeting could not be held but the President got in the Minutes Book a resolution entered censoring the Petitioner. A controversy was ultimately raised by the Petitioner with regard to the correctness of the minutes. The board's meeting was held on 20-1-1956 for the consideration of the charges framed against him. The meeting could not be held but the President got in the Minutes Book a resolution entered censoring the Petitioner. A controversy was ultimately raised by the Petitioner with regard to the correctness of the minutes. The board's recommendation for taking proceedings against the Petitioner u/s 40(3) was considered by the District Magistrate and he rejected that and advised the board not to insist on taking any such action. On 6-3-1956 the Petitioner filed a complaint against the President for defamation. This was however rejected. On 22-9-1956 the Tehsildar served the Petitioner with a copy of the charges that were framed by the State Government against the Petitioner and an order of suspension was also served along with that. The proceedings started against the Petitioner and the consequential suspension order which has been passed have been challenged by means of this writ petition. 3. It is not necessary to go in detail into the various allegations which have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Most of the allegations made in the affidavit are to establish the mala fides of the opposite parties. In brief the acts asserted by the Petitioner are that as the Petitioner was opposed in the election by a Congress candidate who was defeated the members had from the very beginning a design to oust him and the President got annoyed with the Petitioner as the Petitioner wrote strong letters to him in connection with the appointments made by the Executive Officer. All those allegations only amount to assertions of mala fides and motive against the President and the members of the board; but they do not to my mind establish any mala fides of the State Government so as to vitiate the proceedings started by the State Government for the removal of the Petitioner u/s 40 of the Municipalities Act. 4. The main contention however raised by the Petitioner is that the charges which have been made against him and on which the removal of the Petitioner is sought have no relation to the grounds on which a member can be removed u/s 40(3) of the Municipalities Act. They go beyond the ambit of the section and the proceedings therefore must be quashed. 5. They go beyond the ambit of the section and the proceedings therefore must be quashed. 5. It was secondly contended that the charges do not set out all the material facts on which they are based and thus no reasonable opportunity of explanation as contemplated under the proviso to Sub-section 40(3) was given to the Petitioner in this case. 6. It is necessary to enumerate the charges which have been made against the Petitioner. They are as follows: 1 Taking advantage of his position as a member he demanded free passes for cinema shows from the Managers of the Central and Vijay Talkies. On their refusal to issue the passes he threatened to get them challaned by the Municipal Medical Officer and the Sanitary Inspector in his capacity as a member of the Public Health Committee. 2. He in his capacity as member interfered in the legitimate discharge of the duties of the Municipal gang when it had gone to Mohalla Nai Basti on 2-11-1955 for removing the encroachment on Municipal street made by Sri Jugal Kishore. He collected a crowd which prevented the gang from removing the encroachment His conduct in this affair, which was intended to discredit the administration of the Board, created an ugly situation which prevented the gang from doing its duty. As a result if this unauthorised interference on his part to discredit the Municipal administration, as revealed by the objectionable slogans raised in the procession taken out by him immediately thereafter a grave situation was created and the Municipal staff had to go back without performing its legitimate duty. 3. He used a loud speaker on 2-11-55 for announcing a public meeting in the Municipal compound, without obtaining a licence for use of a loud speaker in a public place on payment of fee and thus by his unauthorised action contravened the provisions of the Municipal Bye -laws. 4. Taking advantage of his position as member he forcibly removed on 2-11-55 one table and four chairs from the Municipal office for the public meeting referred to in charge No. 3 without the permission of the President and in spite, of protest by the Municipal employees on duty. 5. 4. Taking advantage of his position as member he forcibly removed on 2-11-55 one table and four chairs from the Municipal office for the public meeting referred to in charge No. 3 without the permission of the President and in spite, of protest by the Municipal employees on duty. 5. He indirectly suggested to Sri Abdul Wahid Khan, retired Moharrir of Slaughter House, to pay him illegal gratification as it used to be given in the past, according to him, to Sri Khub Chand, Member in charge of the Slaughter House. 7. Section 40 of the Municipalities Act provides as follows: The State Government in the case of a city, or the Prescribed Authority in any other case, may remove a member of the board on any of the following grounds: 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 40 provides that: The State Government may remove from the board a member who in its opinion has so flagrantly abused in any manner his position as a member of the board as to render his continuance as a member detrimental to the public interest" Sub-section (4) of Section 40 provides that: "Provided that when either the State Government or the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, proposes to take action under the foregoing provisions of this section an opportunity of explanation shall be given to the member concerned and when such action is taken the reason therefor shall he placed on record. 9. Sub-S (5) of Section 40 provides that: The State Government may place under suspension a member, against whom proceeding under Sub-Ss. (3) and (4) has been commenced, until the conclusion of the enquiry and any member who has been so suspended shall not so long as the order of suspension continues to remain in (sic)rce, be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the board or otherwise perform the duties of a member. 10. Under Sub-section (5) as soon as proceedings commenced under Sub-Ss. (3) and (4) a power has been given to the State Government to suspend a member pending the enquiry. In the present case the order of suspension was passed along with the charges which were given to the Petitioner for explanation. The proceedings therefore had commenced a/ Sub-sections 3 and (4) of Section 40 of the Municipalities Act and consequently the order of suspension cannot be challenged. In the present case the order of suspension was passed along with the charges which were given to the Petitioner for explanation. The proceedings therefore had commenced a/ Sub-sections 3 and (4) of Section 40 of the Municipalities Act and consequently the order of suspension cannot be challenged. Under Sub-section (3) a power had been given to the State Government to remove from the board a member who in the opinion of the State Government has flagrantly abused in any manner his position as a member. The State Government has first got to from its opinion about the conduct of a member and thereafter has to give an opportunity of explanation to the member concerned, The words "an opportunity of explanation" necessarily implies an opportunity to explain the conduct attributed to the member on any other material before the State Government on which the State Government has formed its opinion that the member has so flagrantly abused in any manner his position as a member of the board as to render his continuance, as a member detrimental to the public interest. It necessarily follows that if all the conducts attributed to the Petitioner which had led to the formation of the opinion against a member and the materials in proof of those conducts are not pointed but to the member concerned in the from of a charge-sheet it cannot be said that any reasonable opportunity of explanation had been offered to a member. In this view of the matter when the charges have been given to a member and are placed before this Court it is open to this Court to examine the charges and see if it can be said, that the charges fully set out the conduct on which the State Government has formed its opinion that a member has so flagrantly abused in a manner his position so as to render his continuance detrimental to the public interest and that all the necessary materials on which, such an opinion is formed, and, which requires explanation have been mentioned in the charges. The matters about which the State Government has to form its opinion are firstly that the member has flagrantly abused his position in any manner as a member of the board and secondly that such a flagrant abuse is such as to render his continuance as a member detrimental to the public interest. 11. The matters about which the State Government has to form its opinion are firstly that the member has flagrantly abused his position in any manner as a member of the board and secondly that such a flagrant abuse is such as to render his continuance as a member detrimental to the public interest. 11. It is therefore necessary to examine each of the charges in the light of the observations made by me above. The first charge against the Petitioner is that he demanded free passes for cinema shows from, the Managers of the Central and Vijay Talkies and on their refusal to issue the passes he threatened to get them challaned by the Municipal Medical Officer and the Sanitary Inspector in his capacity as member of the public Health Department. The facts which are alleged in this charge are that he demanded free passes from cinema Manager and on their failure to do so he threatened to get them prosecuted u/s 40(3) a member can be removed only if he had flagrantly abused in any manner his position as a member. If a member asks any cinema Manager to give him free passes and on his refusal to do so threatens to get him prosecuted it cannot be said that he has abused his position as a member. If a member asks any cinema Manager to give him free passes and on his refusal to do so threatens to get him prosecuted it cannot be said that he has abused his position as a member. It is contained by the Standing Counsel very strenuously that if a citizen, approaches a cinema Manager and asks for some favour and on his refusal to do any such favour a threat is given by him that may or may not amount to an abuse of his position by a citizen but if a member of the board taking advantage of his position demands some favour and on refusal threatens to make use of his position to get him prosecuted it is an abuse of his position as a member of the board u/s 48 which provides for the removal of President the words used are "misconduct in the discharge of his duty." The words "abused his position as a member" are wider in connotation than words "in the discharge of his duty." It is true that these words are wider in connotation than the words "in the discharge of his duty"; but a mere demand for a favour and a threat to get a man prosecuted, by itself cannot amount to a flagrant abuse of his position as a member. If a person when he gives out a threat impresses upon the other that he is going to make use of his position as a member and get him prosecuted it may be said that he has flagrantly abused his position as a member In the present case the facts have not been set out in the charge indicating that the Petitioner gave out to the cinema Managers that he was to get them prosecuted in the event of their failure to give him free passes as a member of the Municipal Board. The words used in the charge in his capacity as a member of the public Health Committee, do not appear to be part of the actual threat given by the Petitioner. That may be the inference drawn from the fact that the Petitioner happened to be a member of the board at that time. The words used in the charge in his capacity as a member of the public Health Committee, do not appear to be part of the actual threat given by the Petitioner. That may be the inference drawn from the fact that the Petitioner happened to be a member of the board at that time. It is also not given out in the charge that the Petitioner being a member of the Public Health Department, a fact which was known to the cinema Managers, took advantage of his position as a member and gave a threat to them that he was going to use his power as a member of the Public Health Department in persuading the Medical Officer and the Sanitary' Inspector to make complaints, nor it is given out that at any stage the Petitioner actually attempted to influence the Medical Officer and the Sanitary Inspector to launch such a prosecution. The purpose, as I have said, of framing a charge and giving an opportunity is not only to get a denial from a member charged and thereby to decide which of the two versions is correct. The State Government of the materials placed before it prima facie comes to the conclusion that the charge has been made out against the Petitioner and thereafter the opportunity is to be given to him to explain the conduct and the materials on which that opinion has been formed Unless therefore the materials and the conduct is pointed-out in sufficient details to the member it cannot be said that an opportunity of explanation has been given. In the charge which I have discussed elaborately sufficient materials and the conduct which had led the State Government to form a prima facie opinion about the charge have not been (sic) given so to enable the Petitioner to give an explanation. It should have been pointed out with greater clarity on what occasions and whom this threat was made and what was the actual threat was which was given to them and whether it was made to the person who knew that Petitioner was a member of the Public Health Department or not. 12. Coming to the charge No. 2 to my mind that charge also suffers from the same, defect Some employees of the board were deputed to remove certain encroachments. 12. Coming to the charge No. 2 to my mind that charge also suffers from the same, defect Some employees of the board were deputed to remove certain encroachments. That time he is said have collected a crowd which prevented the gang from removing the encroachments. His conduct in this affair is described as being intended to discredit the administration of the board and that created an ugly situation with prevented the gang from doing duty. The inference that grave situation was created and the municipal staff had to come back without performing its legitimate duty is also drawn from the fact that Petitioner is said to have, used certain objectionable slogans in the procession taken out by him immediately thereafter. In substance this charge consists of two part The first is the conduct of the Petitioner collecting a crowd and (sic) creating a situation under which the employees were forced to leave the place and the second is the taking out of a procession subsequent to it and raising certain objectionable slogans in the charge is concerned it does not appear from the charges as to whether the Petitioner prevented the gang from removing the encroachments or it was the crowd collected which was responsible for preventing the gang from removing the encroachments and the conduct attributed to the Petitioner is of only collecting the crowd. That should have been clearly specified in the charge It should also have been stated in what manner the Petitioner prevented the gang from removing the encroachments. The words used are very vague such as creating an ugly situation. In what manner the ugly situation was created, what happened actually at the time when the crowd was collected have not been given put in the charge in sufficient details so as to enable the Petitioner to offer his explanation. The slogans which are considered by the State Government as objectionable have also not been specified in the charge; 13. The charge No. 3 is that the Petitioner used at a public place a loud speaker with out paying the necessary fee and thus con traveling a municipal bye-law. The slogans which are considered by the State Government as objectionable have also not been specified in the charge; 13. The charge No. 3 is that the Petitioner used at a public place a loud speaker with out paying the necessary fee and thus con traveling a municipal bye-law. It is enough to point out that in the case of Sri Bakitayar Lal v. The state of U.P. 1956 AWR (J) 33 I have held that the mere non-compliance of a municipal bye-law which may be a ground for prosecuting a member is not by itself a flagrant abuse of his position as a member. If the Petitioner as a citizen used a loud speaker without payment of the necessary fee the Municipal Board is entitled to take action against the Petitioner for beaten of the municipal bye-law; but it cannot be regarded as an abuse of his position as a member. 14. The charge No. 4 also to my mind does not set out the the details such as to enable the Petitioner to give his proper explanation Much emphasis was laid by the Staffing Counsel on charge No. 5 in which it is stated that he indirectly suggested to Sri Abdul Wahid Khan retired Moharrir of Slaughter House, to pay him illegal gratification as it used to be given in the past according to the Petitioner to Sri Khub Chand member incharge of the Slaughter House. There was some controversy between the parties as to whether Abdul Wahid Khan was retired Moharrir as the time when this indirect suggesting is said to have been made to him or not. It was contended by the Petitioner that in any case he was on leave at that time when it is alleged he gave out that suggestion. It is not necessary for me to go into that question at this stage. It has not been pointed put in what manner the suggestion was made to Sri Abdul Wahid Khan and what was the actual suggestion made by him for payment of illegal gratification. The words used to my mind are absolutely vague. No conduct had been specifically pointed out which required an explanation by the Petitioner nor the materials have been given in sufficient detail, on which the opinion suggestion and the time, place and manner in which it was made. The words used to my mind are absolutely vague. No conduct had been specifically pointed out which required an explanation by the Petitioner nor the materials have been given in sufficient detail, on which the opinion suggestion and the time, place and manner in which it was made. The only answer in those circumstances could have been a denial on the part of the Petitioner. 15. The object of giving out the charges to my mind is to give out in sufficient details the conduct on which the opinion is formed so as to enable the Petitioner to give his explanation. In the case of Sri Bhagwan Das Barnwal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1956 AWR (H.C.) 435 dealing with the case of municipal President it was observed by a Bench of the Court as follows: If and when that conclusion is arrived at the proviso then requires that President should be told clearly what the conduct of his is which in the opinion of the State Govt. amounts to such gross misconduct. The notice must contain particulars of the facts upon which reliance is placed in sufficient detail to enable the President to deal effectively with the charge or charges in his explanation.... The conduct which the Appellant has been called to explain as stated in the notice served upon him does not amount to gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties as President: The prima facie satisfaction of the State Government that it does amount to gross misconduct is accordingly based on a misapprehension, and is therefore in our opinion no satisfaction within the meaning of Section 48(2)(b)(vi) and that being so the proviso to that Sub-section does not come into operation at all. The State Government had therefore no jurisdiction to call upon the Appellant (President) for an explanation, and in our opinion a prohibition should issue forbidding it from continuing the proceedings. 16. The principle underlying the above case applies fully to the present case. 17. I therefore allow this petition with costs and issue writ of mandamus restraining the opposite parties from continuing the proceedings on the charges issued against the Petitioner which were served on him on 22-9-1956.