The two writ petitioners preferred this writ petition challenging the Notification No.MA.180/91/63-A dated 12.1.94 issued by the Under Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Assam, canceling the earlier Noti­fication dated 6.7.93. 2. Both the petitioners were appointed as Commissioner of the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board under section 11 (3) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (the Act) on 6.7.93. Accordingly after assumption of the appointment as such the petitioners performed their duties and responsibilities attending Board meetings and fulfilling all terms of office as laid down in the Act. But without any notice and information by a fresh notice dated 12.1.94 under section 11(3) the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed, canceling the earlier order of appointment of the petitioners. 3. Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioners challenged the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary as petitioners cannot be removed without giving notice under the provisions of section 29 of the Act. 4. The strength of the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board is 12 of which 10 are elected and 2 appointed. 5. Section 11 (3) of the Act provides as follows : "11. (3) Of the total number of Commissioners as determined under sub­section (1), not more than two may be appointed by the State Govern­ment to represent Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally Barkward Classes, and the remainder shall be elected.” 6. The petitioner No. 1 belongs to Scheduled Caste community while the petitioner No. 2 belong to Scheduled Tribe community. In the counter affidavit the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also averred that the respondent No. 5 belong to Scheduled Caste while respondent No. 6 belong to Scheduled Tribe and also being sole woman member represents the weaker section of the society and further denied the claim of petitioner No. 1 who belong to Malo caste which is not recognised as Scheduled Caste in Assam. But the point for decision before me is whether appointed member under section 11 (3) of the Act can be removed without giving notice. 7. Section 26 (1) of the Act provides for the terms of office of both elected and as well as appointed Commissioners which is for four (4) years from the date of first meeting of the Board which term may be extended for a year at a time. 8. 7. Section 26 (1) of the Act provides for the terms of office of both elected and as well as appointed Commissioners which is for four (4) years from the date of first meeting of the Board which term may be extended for a year at a time. 8. Section 26, sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of the Act provides as follows : " 26. (3) The term of four years referred to in sub section (1) shall be held to include any period which may elapse between the expiry of the said four years and the date of the first meeting of the newly constituted Board at which a quorum is present. (4) The State Government may, by notification, for sufficient cause to be stated therein, direct, from time to time this term of office of the Commissioners be extended by such period not exceeding one year at a time, as may be specified in the notification, provided that the total period of such extension shall not exceed two years. (5) If the term of the office of the Commissioners of a Board expires and for any reason the election as provided in sub section (1) cannot be held, the Board shall be deemed to have been dissolved under section 298 with effect from the date of expiry of the term of the Commissioners and thereafter the provisions of section 299 shall apply." 9. Section 29 of the Act lays down the conditions for removal of Commi­ssioners from the Board. Section 29 (1) provides for removal of elected Commissioners and section 29 (2) relates to conditions of removal of any Commissioner and sub-section (3) provides for giving opportunity of show­ing cause against order of removal. 10. Section 29 of the Act lays down the conditions for removal of Commi­ssioners from the Board. Section 29 (1) provides for removal of elected Commissioners and section 29 (2) relates to conditions of removal of any Commissioner and sub-section (3) provides for giving opportunity of show­ing cause against order of removal. 10. Section 29 (3) of the Act is quoted below : "The State Government may, after consultation with the Board remove any Commissioner if his continuance in office is, in its opinion, dangerous to public peace or order or likely to bring the administration of the Board into contempt: Provided that no Commissioner shall be removed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) unless he has been given an opportunity of showing cause against such order of removal." (underline substituted) The reading of section 29 of the Act apparently leads to the conclusion that the terms of office of appointed Commissioners under section 26 of the Act is subject to the provisions of section 29 Which clearly lays down the grounds under which Commissioners may be removed and that an oppor­tunity of showing cause against such removal have to be given. 11. As discussed above the petitioners were appointed to the Board under section 11 (3) of the Act, therefore their removal have to be made under section 29 (3) of the Act. The impugned notification dated 12.1.94 does not indicate any ground for their removal and nowhere there is any indication that opportunity of show cause was given to them prior to their removal. Ground for removal as averred in the counter affidavit of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is not sustainable when the facts remain that no opportunity was given to them, at least, to counter that allegation. 12. Mr. AK. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 referred AIR 1993 SC 1440 (Om Narayan Agarwal vs. Nagar Palika, Shah-jahaupur); AIR 1974 Gauhati 20 (Satyeswar Daulugupu vs. State of Assam); (1985) 1 GUt 323. 13. In the case of Narayan Agarwalla (supra) proviso of section 9 of UP Municipality Act, 1916 (added by UP Act 19 of 1990) provides that a member nominated under the section, whether before or after February 15, 1990 shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government but not beyond the term of the Board. 13. In the case of Narayan Agarwalla (supra) proviso of section 9 of UP Municipality Act, 1916 (added by UP Act 19 of 1990) provides that a member nominated under the section, whether before or after February 15, 1990 shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government but not beyond the term of the Board. Therefore the Supreme Court held the "such provision neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor the same is against public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution and that there is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affor­ding any opportunity of the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the 4th provision of section 9 of the Act put any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members. " 14. This reference is not applicable in the present case on the ground that in the Assam Municipal Act, the legislature does not contemplate such doctrine of pleasure and section 29 (2) of the Act contemplates opportunity of showing cause for the removal of any member. Provision of section of an Act cannot be imported to another Act unless it is introduced specifically by the legislature. On the same ground the other references made by Mr. Phukan is not applicable in the instant case. However, there is no bar to the Govern­ment to proceed under the provision of section 29 of the Act, if it has materials to do so. 15. In view of my above discussion, I quash the impugned notification dated 12.1.94. 16. In the result the writ petition is allowed. No costs.