R. R. K. TRIVEDI, M. KATJU, JJ. ( 1 ) IN this petition by order dated 16. 1. 1998 time was granted to the learned Counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit with a clear understanding that the petition may be disposed of finally on 9. 2. 1998. However, no counter affidavit has been filed though sufficient time was given. As the question is purely legal, in our opinion, the writ petition can be disposed of finally at this stage even without counter affidavit. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner Khurshed Alam Lari was elected as chairman of Nagar Panchayat Lar, district Deoria. By the impugned order dated 9. 10. 1997, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner under Section 48 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities act, 19. 16 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as to why the petitioner may not be removed from the office of Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Lar, district Deoria. On the same date, another order was passed, which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition, by which petitioner has been deprived of his financial powers which normally vest in him as Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat. Aggrieved by this order present petition has been filed. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned at this place that challenging the show cause notice dated 9. 10. 1997, served on the petitioner under Section 48 (2) of the Act, petitioner filed writ petition No. 35235 of 1997 which was disposed of finally by us on 23. 10. 1997 direction respondent No. 1, State of u. P, to conclude the proceedings against the petitioner initiated by the impugned order, within a period of three months from the date a copy of the order was filed. It is not disputed that three months period has passed, but the proceedings have not been concluded. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner, assailing the impugned order, has submitted that in the Act, there is no provision under which petitioner could be deprived of his financial powers, which normally vest in him till he is in the office of the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat. It has been submitted that the order is without authority. Learned Counsel has submitted that earlier there was provision for suspending Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat during pendency of the inquiry for his removal. It has been submitted that the order is without authority. Learned Counsel has submitted that earlier there was provision for suspending Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat during pendency of the inquiry for his removal. However, by amendment in the Act, introduced by U. P. Act No. 12 of 1991, this power has been specifically taken away. This clearly indicates the legislative intent that during pendency of inquiry, petitioner could not be suspended. The respondents could not be allowed to do indirectly for what they have been prohibited, by depriving the petitioner of his financial powers. Learned Counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 30. 9. 1997 in writ petition No. 31630 of 1997, Smt. Ishrat Bano v. The Commissioner, Azamgarn Division, azamgarh. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Caveator and learned Standing Counsel have submitted that as there could be apprehension for misuse of financial powers during pendency of the inquiry, the order is justified and it is riot a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 6 ) WE have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for parties. However, as there is no provision in the Act under which the impugned order could be passed by the respondents, it is difficult to accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Further sufficient time has already been availed by the respondents but they could not conclude the inquiry initiated against the petitioner for his removal under Section 48 (2) of the Act in spite of our order passed in the earlier writ petition. In Division Bench judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner it has been dealt with in detail about the powers of suspension by the State government the pendency of inquiry for removal of Chairman and it has been held that after amendment no such powers can be exercised. By the impugned order though petitioner has not been suspended, but it amounts to suspension if he is deprived of any of his normal functions as chairman of the Nagar Panchayat which is not permissible under law. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 9. 10. 1997, Annexure 8 to the writ petition. There would be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 9. 10. 1997, Annexure 8 to the writ petition. There would be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) CERTIFIED copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned Counsel for parties on payment of usual charges within 3 days. .