Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 724 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. State Of U. P.

2024-03-06

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. 1. The District Magistrate of the district is not the Master of all that he/she surveys. But, this case, in the company of a variety of contemporary experience, tends to show that the District Magistrate acts that way. In a government, functioning under the Constitution and the laws, there is a division and consequential limitation on authority, which in this case seems not to be there on the functioning of the District Magistrate of Hapur. The District Magistrate, seems to have acted in the way he has done and a successor in office, despite being called upon to justify the exercise of an ultra vires authority, has attempted to support it because, conventionally not only the ordinary citizen, but independent officers of other departments of the Government or even independent bodies of local self-governance established by the Constitution, pay habitual obedience to the District Magistrate. This phenomena is a surviving relic of the colonial era when the District Magistrate and the Collector was the Government's representative at the district headquarters. This ought not to be so any longer. 2. The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, is a Zonal Sanitary Officer, currently posted at the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. He was earlier posted at the Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur as the Chief Sanitary and Food Inspector until 27.07.2022. While posted at Hapur on the 4th of May, 2022, he was at his residence. He experienced dizziness while using the restroom and collapsed. He was taken to Dr. Jeevottam Narang and the doctor advised an MRI for his spine. The MRI was done and a perusal of the MRI report led the doctor to advise the petitioner to take bed rest. The MRI report dated 04.05.2022 from the Dev Nandini Imaging Centre records the following impressions: “IMPRESSION • Broad-based posterior disc bulge at L4-L5 level causing Indentation of the thecal sac bilateral neural foraminal narrowing. • Mild broad-based disc bulge at L1-L2 and L5-S1 levels without significant neural compression.” 3. The petitioner asserts that he was next examined at a higher centre, to wit, the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and advised bed rest. In this regard, a letter dated 09.06.2022 was addressed by the petitioner to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Hapur, District Hapur (for short, 'the Nagar Palika), with a request to sanction medical leave for him during the period 09.06.2022 to 23.06.2022. In this regard, a letter dated 09.06.2022 was addressed by the petitioner to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Hapur, District Hapur (for short, 'the Nagar Palika), with a request to sanction medical leave for him during the period 09.06.2022 to 23.06.2022. During this period, the petitioner underwent medical treatment and sent applications to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, seeking an extension of his leave up to 26.07.2022. A copy of the application dated 12.07.2022 sent by speed post as well as email to the Executive Officer are on record. 4. On the 27the of July, 2022, the petitioner was once again examined by Dr. Aparna Gupta of the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, who certified him fit. He was advised to take regular and proper treatment. The petitioner went to his office at the Nagar Palika and submitted a joining report dated 27.07.2022 addressed to the Executive Officer. 5. On the 30th of June, 2022, the Government issued a transfer list for employees, who are members of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Health Service, of which the petitioner is a member. The petitioner's name was shown at serial No.4. He was transferred from the Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur to the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. The petitioner was relieved on 30.06.2022 to join his new posting at Bareilly. On the 29th of July, 2022, the petitioner joined the office of the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, as a Zonal Sanitary Officer, a promotion posting. The petitioner then addressed a memo dated 12.09.2022 to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, Hapur, seeking sanction of medical leave for the period 1st March, 2022 to 10th May, 2022, so that his salary for the relevant period could be drawn. The petitioner says that he personally met the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika and requested him to forward all requisite papers to the Commissioner of the Division for approval of his medical leave. The Executive Officer is said to have extended assurance in this regard to the petitioner orally. 6. On the 3rd of November, 2022, the petitioner made a representation to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, requesting him to send all requisite papers to the Divisional Commissioner for approval of his medical leave, a copy whereof was addressed to the District Magistrate, Hapur, whom the petitioner himself calls a higher authority. 6. On the 3rd of November, 2022, the petitioner made a representation to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, requesting him to send all requisite papers to the Divisional Commissioner for approval of his medical leave, a copy whereof was addressed to the District Magistrate, Hapur, whom the petitioner himself calls a higher authority. The petitioner, while posted at the Nagar Palika, on the 11th of March, 2022 was doing some work on a computer, when he experienced sudden pain in his eyes and his vision got blurred. It was then that on 11th of March 2022, he was rushed to the Eye Hospital, Meerut, where the doctor advised him an eye surgery. It was performed on 14th of March, 2022. The petitioner informed the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika in this regard. A copy of the petitioner's application dated 14.03.2022, addressed to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika with a copy endorsed to the Chairman, seeking sanction of medical leave on account of the eye surgery from 14.03.2022 to 19.03.2022 is on record. It shows that the petitioner underwent a surgical procedure at the Roop Netralaya, Meerut. Later on, through an application of 6th April, 2022, addressed to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, the petitioner sought extension of medical leave until 14th April, 2022. There are medical documents annexed to these two applications. In fact, the second one, seems to show that the petitioner underwent a surgery for his cataract in the right eye and advised rest for a month from 14.03.2022 to 14.04.2022. A medical certificate in this regard dated 15.04.2022 issued by Dr. Roop of Acura Vision Clinics, Meerut is on record at Page 67 of the paper-book. 7. On the 15th of April, 2022, the petitioner was declared fit to join his duties by the Eye Hospital, where he was treated. On the 16th of April, 2022, the petitioner moved an application to the Executive Officer for sanction of medical leave from 14.03.2022 to 15.04.2022. This leave was sanctioned to the petitioner in terms of a letter of the Chairman of the Nagar Palika dated 14.04.2022 and forwarded to the Executive Officer to take follow-up steps. 8. On the 16th of April, 2022, the petitioner moved an application to the Executive Officer for sanction of medical leave from 14.03.2022 to 15.04.2022. This leave was sanctioned to the petitioner in terms of a letter of the Chairman of the Nagar Palika dated 14.04.2022 and forwarded to the Executive Officer to take follow-up steps. 8. On the 6th of April, 2022, while the petitioner was away on medical leave, the District Magistrate, Hapur, visited the office of the Nagar Palika and issued a letter dated 06.04.2022 saying that the petitioner was absent. It was also said that there was no information about his absence from duty available with the Nagar Palika. A show cause notice was addressed by the District Magistrate directly to the petitioner, an employee of the Nagar Palika, where he was asked, on account of his unauthorized absence, to show cause within three days why for his act in neglecting government work, appropriate action be not recommended against him to the Department of Urban Development. Attached to this show cause notice, which is on record as Annexure No.13, is a report by the District Magistrate, also dated 06.04.2022, which shows that he inspected the Establishment Counter, the Water Works Department and the Health Department of the Nagar Palika. He undertook an inspection of all these Departments, as if he were the supervising authority of the Nagar Palika. This show cause notice and the report was issued/ drawn up by an officer, going by the name Anuj Singh, the then incumbent District Magistrate of Hapur. This inspection report dated 06.04.2022 carries an order by the District Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner's salary shall not be drawn. It is this direction by the District Magistrate, carried in the inspection report together with the show cause notice, that has impelled the petitioner to move this Court through the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The petitioner has prayed that the inspection report of the District Magistrate, Hapur dated 06.04.2022 be quashed, by which this Court understands that the petitioner means to seek quashing of that part of the report, by which the drawing and disbursement of his salary has been stopped by the District Magistrate by a direction to that effect issued to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika. The petitioner has also prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner's salary for the month of March and April, 2022. A further direction has been sought to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika to forward the petitioner's medical leave papers to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut for the sanction of his leave. 10. Heard Mr. Rajpal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, to wit, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 11. No notice was issued to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur in this case, because the action that is challenged, including the impugned order, is not one made by the Nagar Palika, but the District Magistrate, Hapur. 12. This Court must say at once that the petitioner by his pleadings in the writ petition blamed the District Magistrate for violating the principles of natural justice, in ordering the stoppage of his salary as also unfair action. It is also one of the objections that the District Magistrate inspected the Nagar Palika on the 6th of April, 2022, and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to order non-disbursement of the petitioner's salary for the month of March, 2022. The petitioner has said that there were a host of his ailments that led him to apply for medical leave, which on account of not being forwarded to the Commissioner of the Division, the competent authority, could not be sanctioned. He has, in short, said that there was no unauthorized absence on his part, but compelling medical and health issues, that kept him away from work. 13. Interestingly, the petitioner too has thought that the District Magistrate had jurisdiction to walk into the Nagar Palika's establishment, undertake a wholesome inspection of different Departments of theirs and pass orders, affecting service interest of employees of the Nagar Palika. Even in his grievance, the petitioner did not think that the District Magistrate was nobody to do that and he was not the petitioner's employer. When this question was put by this Court to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if the District Magistrate would at all have jurisdiction to pass orders in relation to a service matter of an employee of the Nagar Palika, he answered in the negative. When this question was put by this Court to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if the District Magistrate would at all have jurisdiction to pass orders in relation to a service matter of an employee of the Nagar Palika, he answered in the negative. This Court then called upon the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to disclose his stand. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel attempted to justify the District Magistrate's action, whereupon this Court called upon the District Magistrate to justify his jurisdiction in passing the order impugned, stopping the petitioner's salary, including doing an inspection of the Nagar Palika etc., by his personal affidavit. This order was passed on the 18th of August, 2023. The District Magistrate, Hapur, now a changed incumbent, Ms. Prerna Sharma, filed a personal affidavit dated 22nd of August, 2023. 14. Sadly, in the affidavit filed by the incumbent District Magistrate, who responded for her predecessor, not a solitary provision of the law, that is to say, the statute or the rules framed under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short, 'the Act of 1916'), or some other law was cited, to justify the District Magistrate's jurisdiction in intermeddling with the affairs of the Nagar Palika and passing orders affecting service interest of the Palika employees. What the District Magistrate has said, makes this Court think that it is her belief that the Government and all their Departments function dehors the laws and by the authority of Government Orders or policy directions. The relevant part of the District Magistrate's affidavit, in justification of the jurisdiction to intermeddle in the service matters of employees of the Nagar Palika and pass an order of the kind that is impugned, reads: “6. That for the purpose of redressal of the grievance of the public at large the State Government has initiated IGRS portal. For effective and quality disposal of the complaints received from the public at large the State Government directs several administrative offices of the district and for smooth functioning of the offices at district level, District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner have been held responsible to review their works, planning, projects etc. of the offices at district level vide Government Order No.540/Chautish-Lo.Sh.-05/2021 dated 20.10.2021. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, Copy of the Government Order dated 20.10.2021 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit. 7. of the offices at district level vide Government Order No.540/Chautish-Lo.Sh.-05/2021 dated 20.10.2021. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, Copy of the Government Order dated 20.10.2021 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit. 7. That the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Karmik Anubhag-1 has issued office memorandum No.4/2022/ 19 Samanya/ Ka-4-2022/303/2020 dated 12.02.2022 for determination of work arrangement in Government offices during Covid-19 with direction that all the offices will function cent percent w.e.f. 14.02.2022. However, for the purpose of checking infection it was also directed to avoid crowding and all the office staff were expected to use sanitization, face mask, maintain social distance and protective measures. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court copy of the aforesaid office memorandum dated 12.02.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit. 8. That under the Uttar Pradesh Public Health and Epidemic Diseases Control Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2020' for short) a committee has been constituted in the name of District Epidemic Control Authority to be headed by the District Magistrate. Under the aforesaid Act, 2020 the District Magistrate has been conferred following powers: (a) egkekjh ds jksdFkke ,ao fu;a=.k ds fy, ftyk esa foHkUu foHkkx ds fØ;kdYkkiks ds lkFk leUo; LFkkfir djuk] (b) ;g lqfuf'pr djuk fd lkeqnkf;d dk;Z ds fy, vko';d lsoak;s lqxerkiwoZd rFkk i;kZIr :i es dh tk;] (c) leLr ljdkjh ;k jkT; izkf/kdj.k ds vkns'kks dks lqxerkiwoZd fØ;kfUor fd;k tk;A For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court copy of the relevant extract of the Act, 2020 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. That for the welfare of the public at large, the District Magistrate has been nominated chairman of the several district committees constituted under different schemes floated by the State Government and the Central Government in view of financial aid to be extended by the Government for implementation of the schemes. In this regard, for the purpose of removing certain difficulties, the State Government has issued letter No.677/Nau-9-16-193Ja/13 dated 18.05.2016. By the said Government Order the District Magistrate has been given power to give administrative and financial approval and to ensure the quality of the development works at district level. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the Government order dated 18.05.2016 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit. By the said Government Order the District Magistrate has been given power to give administrative and financial approval and to ensure the quality of the development works at district level. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the Government order dated 18.05.2016 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit. 9. That from the perusal of above facts and details stated hereinabove it is apparent that the District Magistrate has been conferred power from different sources to implement and make successful the schemes of the State Government as well as Central Government floated in public interest at large.” (emphasis by Court) 15. There is not a word said by the District Magistrate in her affidavit about the source of her authority flowing from any statute or statutory rule to interfere with the affairs of the Nagar Palika and issue directions in relation to the service interests of the servants and officers of the Nagar Palika. After a wholesome reference to the steps taken by the Government for redressal of public grievances and smooth functioning of government offices at the district level, all that the District Magistrate has to say is that the District Magistrate is the chargé d'affaires at the District Headquarters and the Commissioner at the Divisional Headquarters, who can interfere with anything and everything; with any establishment, whether independent, autonomous or elected. There is then a reference to some directions by the Chief Secretary relating to control of the Covid-19 pandemic, which is absolutely an irrelevant reference. There is then a vague and useless assertion in Paragraph No.9 of the District Magistrate's personal affidavit, which says that the District Magistrate has been conferred power from different sources to implement and make successful government schemes. None of these answer the Court's specific question put to the District Magistrate, to wit, the source of the District Magistrate's authority to interfere in the functioning of an autonomous and elected local body, and, that too service matters of the Nagar Palika's employees. 16. This Court is of opinion that the District Magistrate has very limited say in the matters of a Nagar Palika governed by the Act of 1916. Section 34 is the only source of power that the District Magistrate has to interfere with the decisions of a Nagar Palika Parishad. Section 34 reads: "34. 16. This Court is of opinion that the District Magistrate has very limited say in the matters of a Nagar Palika governed by the Act of 1916. Section 34 is the only source of power that the District Magistrate has to interfere with the decisions of a Nagar Palika Parishad. Section 34 reads: "34. Power of the State Government or the Prescribed Authority or the District Magistrate to prohibit execution or further execution of resolution or order of Municipality. - (1) The Prescribed Authority may, by order in writing, prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolution or order passed or made under this or any other enactment by a Municipality or a committee of a Municipality or a Joint Committee or any officer or servant of a Municipality or of a Joint Committee if in its opinion such resolution or order is of a nature to cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public or to any class or body of persons lawfully employed and may prohibit the doing or continuance by any person of any act in pursuance for or under cover of such resolution or order. (1A) The District Magistrate may, within the limits of his district, by order in writing, prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolution or order passed or made under this or any other enactment by a Municipality or a committee of a Municipality or a Joint Committee or any officer or servant of a Municipality or of a Joint Committee if in his opinion such resolution or order is of a nature to cause or tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or a riot or affray, and may prohibit the doing or continuance by any person of any act, in pursuance of or under cover of such resolution or order. (1B) the State Government may, on its own motion or on report or complaint received by order prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolution or order passed or made under this or any other enactment by a Municipality or a committee of a Municipality or a Joint Committee or any officer or servant of a Municipality or of a Joint Committee, if in its opinion such resolution or order is prejudicial to the public interest, or has been passed or made in abuse of powers or in flagrant breach of any provision of any law for the time being in force, and may prohibit the doing or continuance by any person of any act in pursuance of or under cover of such resolution or order. (2) Where an order is made under sub-section (1) or (1-A), a copy thereof with a statement of the reasons for making it, shall forthwith be forwarded by the Prescribed Authority or the District Magistrate through the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, to the State Government which may thereupon, if it thinks fit, rescind or modify the order. (3) [***] (4) Where the execution or further execution of a resolution or order is prohibited by an order made under sub-section (1), (1-A) or (1-B) and continuing in force, it shall be the duty of the Municipality, if so required by the authority making the order under the said sub-sections to take any action which it would have been entitled to take, if the resolution or order had never been made or passed, and which is necessary for preventing any person from doing or continuing to do anything under cover of the resolution or order of which the further execution is prohibited.” 17. I had occasion to consider this issue in Vimlesh Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC:242348, where I held: "16. The District Magistrate’s power is traceable to sub-Section (1-A) of Section 34 alone, which authorizes him to prohibit the execution of a resolution passed by a Municipality or a Committee or an Officer etc., if he is of opinion that the resolution or the order is of a nature that may cause or tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or a riot or affray. That is the limited authority of the District Magistrate to interfere in the affairs of a Nagar Palika or a Municipality, as it was formerly called. There is no other power vested in the District Magistrate to interfere with any decision made by the Nagar Palika Board, its Chairman or the Executive Officer or a Committee or an Officer thereof. Rather, this Court is inclined to think that the autonomy and independence of a Nagar Palika is far more strenghtened and requires to be more zealously protected in view of inclusion of Part IX-A in the Constitution by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992. This amendment elevates local bodies to a constitutional status and attempts to effect decentralization of democratic power. It provides a constitutional bulwark to strengthen local self-government, more answerable to its eloctorate than a supervising agent of the State Government. Part IX-A of the Constitution and all its provisions would require Section 34 of the Act of 1916 to be understood very differently from the way it was in the day of its enactment. The powers of the District Magistrate must, therefore, be held limited to Section 34 and not expanded in any manner.” 18. The issue has been answered authoritatively by a Bench decision of this Court in President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur, Babita Jaiswal v. State of U.P., AIR OnLine 2019 All 2407. In Babita Jaiswal (supra), it was held: "(24) From a bare reading of said Section 34, it is clear that the District Magistrate has power to interfere with only such resolutions or orders of the Nagar Palika Parishad if the same are likely to cause or tend to cause 'obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public......' or 'danger to human life, health or safety or a riot or affray'. Awarding a contract in favour of a person cannot be matter, which may cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public or danger to human life, health or safety etc. Even directions to make payment with regard to contract given by the Nagar Palika Parishad or execution of resolutions passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, which include cleaning of drains and repairing of roads etc. also would not fall in the category of cases enumerated under Section 34 of the Act under which the District Magistrate can invoke the powers under Section 34 of the Act. also would not fall in the category of cases enumerated under Section 34 of the Act under which the District Magistrate can invoke the powers under Section 34 of the Act. (25) The Constitution of India as well as the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 envisage that the Nagar Palika Parishads are to work independently and carry on the functions and duties, which it is obliged in law to perform. Interference by the District Magistrate or the State Government would only be permissible if the circumstances enumerated under Section 34 of the Act prevail. (26) The bye-laws dated 24.09.1994, as annexed with the writ petition as Annexure no.10, providing for registration and execution of works was published under Section 301 of the Act, 1916 inviting objections which is the previous publication envisaged under Section 300 of the Act, 1916. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the bye-laws in question was never published in the official gazette as required under Section 301 of the Act, 1916. This fact is not correct. The previous publication as envisaged under the aforesaid provision has been complied with and publication was made in the official Gazette inviting objections/suggestions from the general public. The State has failed proved that thereafter no final publication was made in the Official Gazette under Section 301 (2) of the Act, 1916. (27) In our considered opinion, the power, which has been exercised by the District Magistrate in the present case, would not fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 34 of the Act. The members of the Nagar Palika Parishad are duly elected and interference by the executive would only be to the extent permissible in law. Since we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the District Magistrate are outside the purview of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1916 and the learned Standing Counsel has not placed any other provision of law under which the District Magistrate could have passed the said orders, which clearly interfere with the functioning of the Nagar Palika Parishad, the said orders would be liable to be quashed.” 19. In Subodh Kumar Gupta and others v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others, 2016 SCC OnLine All 1358, the issue was considered by this Court in the context of an order made by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, terminating the service of the petitioners there, all of whom were Class-III and IV employees of the Nagar Palika Parishad, appointed after the Chairman's approval. The appointments were terminated by the District Magistrate, purporting to exercise his powers under Section 34 of the Act of 1916. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was held by this Court in Subodh Kumar Gupta (supra): "16. From a bare reading of Section 34 of the Act, it is clear that the District Magistrate has power to interfere with only such resolutions or orders of the Nagar Palika Parishad if the same are likely to cause or tend to cause ‘obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public……’ or ‘danger to human life, health or safety or a riot or affray’. Awarding a contract in favour of a person cannot be matter, which may cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public or danger to human life, health or safety etc. Even directions to make payment with regard to contract given by the Nagar Palika Parishad or execution of resolutions passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, which include cleaning of drains and repairing of roads etc. also would not fall in the category of cases enumerated under Section 34 of the Act under which the District Magistrate can invoke the powers under Section 34 of the Act. The Constitution of India as well as the Act envisage that the Nagar Palika Parishads are to work independently and carry on the functions and duties, which it is obliged in law to perform. Interference by the District Magistrate or the State Government would only be permissible, if the circumstances enumerated under Section 34 of the Act prevail.” 20. In Vimlesh Lal (supra), where the District Magistrate was confronted with the patent lack of authority with him to interfere in service matters of the Nagar Palika, he conceded to the lack of his authority in the matter. Here, the District Magistrate has taken a stand about an assumed authority and jurisdiction, not possessed by the holder of that office. 21. In plurality of governance, like other pluralities, powers are exercised concerning different bodies and establishments by no unity of authority. Here, the District Magistrate has taken a stand about an assumed authority and jurisdiction, not possessed by the holder of that office. 21. In plurality of governance, like other pluralities, powers are exercised concerning different bodies and establishments by no unity of authority. Sometimes, within the establishment, the laws may invest a particular Authority with a specific power that the other, may be a higher up in the hierarchy, cannot exercise. This Court cannot ignore much misconception, prevalent about the omnicompetence of the District Magistrate, which does not exist. Heads of independent elected bodies, as already remarked, or independent departments, are often seen succumbing to orders of the District Magistrate, which the District Magistrate has no business to issue. The acceptability of the District Magistrate's jurisdiction, where he/ she possesses none, is an unfortunate shadow of the colonial past, again as already remarked. The sooner this misconception is given up in favour of the plurality of powers exercised by various authorities functioning under different laws, the better. All District Magistrates in the State will, therefore, bear caution, limiting their interference in the Nagar Palika strictly to what the Act of 1916 permits. 22. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the District Magistrate, Hapur carried in the inspection note dated 06.04.2022, ordering the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad not to draw and disburse the petitioner's salary, is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur to ensure payment of all such dues on account of salary/ emoluments to the petitioner that have been withheld under orders of the District Magistrate, Hapur, since quashed, together with simple interest @ 6% per annum till date of payment. A mandamus is further issued to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur to forward the medical leave papers to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut shall be under a command to decide the petitioner's application for sanction of medical leave in accordance with law within a period of 15 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. 23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Hapur and the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by the Registrar (Compliance).