JUDGMENT Kishwari Begum is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 27.01.2017 passed by State Government whereby the financial and administrative powers of petitioner as Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, FatehganjPurvi, District Bareilly has been ceased alongwith show cause notice in question. Brief background of the case is that petitioner is a duly elected Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, FatehganjPurvi, District Bareilly and as against petitioner, large scale complaint has been made and inquiry in question was got conducted through City Magistrate, Rampur and report was submitted to District Magistrate, Bareilly on 27.06.2016. The District Magistrate, Bareilly transmitted the same to the State Government on 25.07.2016 and the State Government, in its turn, on 25.07.2016 called for a reply from the petitioner. Petitioner has submitted a detailed and elaborate reply on 22.08.2016 denying each and every allegation. It appears that after the report was submitted, the State Government once again called for the report from the District Magistrate, Bareilly and the District Magistrate, Bareilly, in his turn, submitted his report dated 28.11.2016. After receiving the said report in question, the State Government has proceeded to make a mention that on the basis of adverse facts that have emerged, there are reasons to form an opinion that petitioner has failed to discharge her duties as a Chairman and not only this, she has committed material irregularities and misused her official position and as such, she is unfit to continue as Chairman and accordingly she is charge-sheeted and in view of the same, notices were issued to petitioner under Section 48(2) (a)(b) for showing cause as to why she should not be superseded and during the said interregnum period her administrative and financial powers have been ceased. Shri PrabhakarAwasthi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted with vehemence before this Court that in the present case, the reply to the notice submitted by petitioner has not at all been adverted to or considered and on mere surmises and conjectures, mention has been made that there are adverse material available against the petitioner and inquiry is required and accordingly notice has been issued mentioning therein that financial and administrative powers have been misused by the petitioner and that too without taking into account the reply so submitted by petitioner and without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has rightly contended that rightful order has been passed and no interference be made. In order to appreciate respective argument that has been so advanced, this Court proceeds to mention that in order to have participation of people at all level for fulfilling the saying that 'democracy is for the people, of the people; and by the people' and it is the will of the people that is paramount for the purposes of self governance for urban areas, Municipalities have been created and same forms part of Local Self Government under U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, wherein elections are held and peoples representative are elected based on secret ballot basis, and such elected members have the right to govern the affairs of the Municipality concerned as per the statutory provisions under U.P. Municipalities Act 1916. Municipality consists of President who is the Chairperson, and elected Members. Apart from elected Member, Municipality also has ex-officio Members as enumerated in sub-section (b), (c), (d) of Section 9 of the Act. Municipalities were earlier having statutory status, and now they have been conferred with constitutional status as in Part-IX and IXA of the Constitution, Article 243 to 243ZG has been introduced to bring Panchayats, ZilaParshads and Municipalities as constitutional instrumentalities to elongate the socio economic and political democracy under the Rule of law. 74th amendment of the Constitution deals with Municipalities covering urban areas of the District and same also takes within its fold; (I) Rural area in transition to becoming urban area, earlier known as Town Area now designated as Nagar Panchayat (II) Urban areas, depending on its size, are known as Municipality (smaller urban area) or Municipal Corporation (larger urban area). Once constitutional status has been given to the Municipality and it is a democratic institution and its functioning is governed by rule of law provided for in the statute book, known as U.P. Municipalities Act 1916, wherein an incumbent elected to the office is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by procedure known to law or he is removed by procedure established under law. In this background the relevant provision holding the field of removal of President for answering the issues raised are being looked into. Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 provides for as follows: - "48. In this background the relevant provision holding the field of removal of President for answering the issues raised are being looked into. Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 provides for as follows: - "48. Removal of President.- (1) [omitted] (2) Where the State Government has, at any time, reason to believe that - (a) there has been a failure on the part of the President in performing his duties, or (b) the President has (i) incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sections 12-D and 43-AA; or (ii) within the meaning of Section 82 knowingly acquired or continued to have, directly or indirectly, or by a partner, any share or interest, whether pecuniary or of any other nature, in any contract or employment with, by or on behalf of the Municipality; or (iii) knowingly acted as a President or as a member in a matter other than a matter referred to in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 32, in which he has, directly or indirectly, or by a partner, any share or interest, whether pecuniary or of any other nature, or in which he was professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; or (iv) being a legal practitioner acted or appeared in any suit or other proceeding on behalf of any person against the Municipality or against the State Government in respect of nazul land entrusted to the management of the municipality, or acted or appeared for or on behalf of any person against whom a criminal proceeding has been instituted by or on behalf of the municipality; or (v) abandoned his ordinary place of residence in the municipal area concerned; or (vi) been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or (vii) during the current or the last preceding term of the Municipality, acting as President or Vice- President, or as Chairman of a Committee, or as member or in any other capacity whatever, whether before or after the commencement of the Uttar Padesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 so flagrantly abused his position or so wilfully contravened any of the provisions of the Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law, or caused such loss or damage to the fund or property of the Municipality as to render him unfit to continue to be President; or (viii) been guilty of any other misconduct whether committed before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 whether as President or as Vice-President, exercising the powers of President or as Vice- President,or as member; or [(ix) caused loss or damage to any property of the Municipality; or; (x)misappropriated or misused of Municipal fund; or (xi)acted against the interest of the Municipality; or (xii)contravened the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder; or (xiii)created an obstacle in a meeting of the Municipality in such manner that it becomes impossible for the Municipality to conduct its business in the meeting or instigated someone to do so; or (xiv)wilfully contravened any order or direction of the State Government given under this Act; or (xv)misbehaved without any lawful justification with the officers or employees of the Municipality; or (vi)disposed of any property belonging to the Municipality at a price less than its market value; or (xvii)encroached, or assisted or instigated any other person to encroach upon the land, building or any other immovable property of the Municipality,] it may call upon him to show cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from office]: [Provided that where the State Government has reason to believe that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima-facie guilty on any of the grounds of this sub-section resulting in the issuance of the show cause notice and proceedings under this sub-section he shall, from the date of issuance of the show cause notice containing charges, cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice issued to him under this sub-section and finalization of the proceedings under sub-section (2-A) and the said powers, functions and duties of the President during the period of such ceasing, shall be exercised, performed and discharged by the District Magistrate or an officer nominated by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector.)" Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act 1916, provides for procedure as well as ground on which a President can be removed. Proviso to Section 48(2) provides for cessation of financial and administrative powers under specified conditions mentioned therein. In order to answer the issue raised, the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Versus State of U.P. and others 2011 (2 ) UPLBEC 889 is being looked into. The Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the issues in paragraph 40. The issues which were considered by the Full Bench of this Court have been noted is to the following effect: - "40 The division bench has referred three questions. They are mentioned under the heading 'QUESTIONS REFERRED'. For convenience, we have reformulated them into the following points for determination and have added preliminary objection of the respondent as the first point. (i) Whether the reference should be sent back unanswered. (ii) Can there be proceeding for removal of a president under section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act, without ceasing his financial and administrative powers; (iii) Whether any separate or specific order is required under proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act for ceasing financial and administrative power (iv) If the notice purported be given under proviso to Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act does not comply with it then what is the consequence; (v) What are the condition precedent (other than mentioned in the next point) for ceasing financial and administrative powers under proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act; (vi) Whether any opportunity is also required to be afforded before ceasing financial and administrative powers; (vii) In case opportunity is required to be afforded then what is its extent;" The Full Bench in the case of Hafizataullah Ansari (supra) has laid down following principles in paragraphs 59, 60, 61, 79 and 84 which are quoted below: - "59. The president ceases to exercise the financial and administrative powers as soon as a show cause notice under section 48(2) satisfying the conditions of the proviso to section 48(2) or a valid show cause notice under proviso to section 48(2)of the Municipalities Act is issued. The cessation of power is automatic: it is so contemplated in the proviso itself. 60. The president ceases to exercise the financial and administrative powers as soon as a show cause notice under section 48(2) satisfying the conditions of the proviso to section 48(2) or a valid show cause notice under proviso to section 48(2)of the Municipalities Act is issued. The cessation of power is automatic: it is so contemplated in the proviso itself. 60. Once, a valid notice under proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act is issued, then even if it is not mentioned that the financial and administrative powers of the president have ceased, it does not mean that he can still exercise them. The cessation of the president's power is automatic and necessary consequence of issuance of the valid notice complying with the conditions under the proviso. 61. In view of above, it is not necessary that order ceasing the right to exercise financial and administrative powers should be mentioned in the separate order or in the show cause notice itself but what is necessary is that the notice should be valid; it should comply with the conditions of the proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act. 79. The notice that results in ceasing the financial and administrative powers under the proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act is not a simple show cause notice--it must contain the charges as well. It is only when the show cause notice contains the charges that the cessation of the financial and administrative power takes place. 84. In our opinion, the cessation of financial and administrative power can take place only if the power under the proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act is rightly exercised. It is rightly exercised only if at least the following conditions are satisfied in the notice/ order: (i) There should be objective satisfaction of the State government that: The allegations do not appear to be groundless; and The president is prima facie guilty of the ground that have to be indicated under section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act. (ii) The show cause notice should contain the charges; (iii) The show cause notice should not only indicates the material on which the reason to believe or objective satisfaction is based, but the evidence by which charges are to be proved should also mentioned. (ii) The show cause notice should contain the charges; (iii) The show cause notice should not only indicates the material on which the reason to believe or objective satisfaction is based, but the evidence by which charges are to be proved should also mentioned. However, in most of the cases they might be the same and there would not be any point in repeating them." Ultimately, the Full Bench in the case of Hafizataullah Ansari (supra) in paragraph 133 recorded its conclusion which is quoted below: - "133. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) There can be proceeding for removal of president under section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act without ceasing his financial and administrative power under its proviso; (b) The following conditions must be satisfied before cessation of financial and administrative powers of a president of a Municipality can take place: (i)The explanation or point of view or the version of the affected president should be obtained regarding charges and should be considered before recording satisfaction and issuing notice/order under proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act; (ii) The State government should be objectively satisfied on the basis of relevant material that: The allegations do not appear to be groundless; and The president is prima facie guilty of any of the grounds under section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act. (iii)The show cause notice must contain the charges against the president; (iv)The show cause notice should also indicate the material on which the objective satisfaction for reason to believe is based as well as the evidence by which charges against the president are to be proved. Though in most of the cases they may be the same; (c) It is not necessary to pass separate order under proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act. It could be included in the notice satisfying the other conditions under proviso to section 48(2). In fact it is not even necessary. It comes into operation by the Statute itself on issuance of a valid notice under proviso to Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act. (d)............................. (e)............................. (f)............................." From the above pronouncement made, it is clear that the cessation of financial and administrative powers can take place only when view point of Chairperson is called for in reference of the charges and same has to be considered before recording satisfaction and issuing notice/order under the proviso to Section 48(2). (d)............................. (e)............................. (f)............................." From the above pronouncement made, it is clear that the cessation of financial and administrative powers can take place only when view point of Chairperson is called for in reference of the charges and same has to be considered before recording satisfaction and issuing notice/order under the proviso to Section 48(2). Consideration is not to be a lip service or an empty formality, as State Government is obligated to objectively satisfy itself on the basis of relevant material, that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the Chairperson is prima facie guilty of any of the grounds under Section 48(2) of U.P. Municipalities Act. Once all these per-requisite conditions are not at all fulfilled, then the State Government merely on its whims and fancies, cannot cease financial and administrative powers of Chairperson, as a duly elected Chairperson, in the garb of making inquiry, in democratic set up, without following the fair procedure prescribed under law, cannot be restrained from performing and discharging duties enjoined upon him /her under Section 50, 51, 51-A, 52, 53A of U.P. Municipalities Act 1916. All these provisions have been noted in extenso in Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Nagar Panchayat, Safipur vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (10) ADJ 608 and on the parameters of the provisions that have been noted above what we find is that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.02.2016 and to the same, petitioner submitted her reply and after submitting the reply in question, this much is reflected that finding has been returned that all the charges stood proved and thereafter mention has been made for initiating proceedings under sub-section 2 of Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 asking the petitioner for showing cause as to why he should not be removed. On the parameters that have been noted above, the most peculiar characteristics of the action taken by the State Government is that the State Government, in its turn, had issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 25.07.2016 and petitioner has submitted detailed and elaborate reply to the same on 22.08.2016 and thereafter based on the said reply again comments have been called from the District Magistrate, Bareilly and the same has been submitted by him on 28.11.2016. Petitioner, at no point of time, has ever been supplied with the copy of the recommendations made by the District Magistrate, Bareilly whereas the same has been made foundation and basis for initiating proceedings against petitioner wherein her administrative and financial power has been ceased. Petitioner has not been afforded with any opportunity to rebut the contents of the opinion formed in report dated 28.11.2016 submitted by the District Magistrate, Bareilly and in view of this what we find from the record most surprisingly is that entire allegations that have been so mentioned qua the petitioner, against the same detailed and elaborate reply has been submitted by the petitioner on 22.08.2016 and on the said reply, comments have been called for by District Magistrate, Bareilly and has been submitted by him on 28.11.2016. Copy of the same has not at all been supplied to the petitioner. The reply submitted by the petitioner has not been adverted to and opinion has been formed for ceasing administrative and financial powers of the petitioner. We do not approve of such exercise of authority by the State Government, inasmuch as in a democracy governed by a Rule of law, a person elected to an office in a democratic institution is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected, unless the same is set aside by the procedure prescribed by law. An elected candidate is entitled to own and enjoy the office and discharge the duties related therewith during the specific term, he has been elected by the relevant enactment. It is not only a valuable statutory right vested in him, but also of the constituency which he leads and removal from such office, is a serious matter. Thus, any provisions which curtail the elected term or causes hindrance in exercise of his duties as an elected representative is to be construed in a strict manner, inasmuch as the office is occupied on the basis of an election and the deprivation from the office is by an administrative order in which there is no participation of the electorate, who elected him. A Division Bench of our Court in the case of BabitaKasaudhan vs. State of U.P. and others 2016 (2) UPLBEC 1040 has held as follows: - "In such view of the matter, not only in case of removal, but even in the matter of temporary deprivation of the office, the same principles as have applied in case of removal from the elected office, shall be applicable. The proceedings for temporary deprivation of office, thus, not only has to comply with the strict observance of the principles of natural justice, but the decision so taken has to reflect and indicate that the authority has duly applied its mind to the entire facts and circumstances before taking the decision. What is the point in affording opportunity if the explanation is not considered, and consideration necessarily implies application of mind. The impugned action of the State Government ceasing financial and administrative power of the petitioner, when tested on the above parameters of the legal principles, completely fails as it does not record any reason, worth the namesake. In the conclusion; there is no consideration at all of the reply submitted by the petitioner; the satisfaction that State Government has reasons to believe that allegations do not appear to be groundless and she is prima facie guilty of the charges levelled is not its own, but is based on the report of the District Magistrate, which was obtained behind the back of the petitioner without her participation and without supplying copy of the same. In view of this, not only the decision making process in absence of the reasons cannot be said to be free, fair and transparent, but it also contravenes and violates the principles of natural justice as the order has been passed in a mechanical manner without any application of mind." In view of the above facts and deliberations, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the State Government dated 27.01.2017 is unsustainable on the face of it and accordingly the same is quashed, in view of this, the financial and administrative power of petitioner be restored forthwith but we make it clear that passing of this order will not at all come in the way of the State Government to pass fresh order in accordance with law but certainly after providing opportunity of hearing. With this, Writ Petition is allowed.