HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9060 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned letter/show cause notice 4041/9-125-1930328 Lucknow dated 2/3.9.2025, issued by the Opp. Party No 2 contained as Annexure No.1 to this petition." 3. We have gone through the pleadings made in this petition and also the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Ordinarily the show cause notices are not interfered with unless there is lack of jurisdiction prayed or 'Malice in Fact' or 'Malice in Law' prayed by the petitioner. 4. Having gone through the impugned show cause notice, we do not find that it has been issued without jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that independent application of mind has not been applied and sub-clauses of Section 48-B of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 that have been quoted in the show cause notice are not made out. He has stated on the basis of judgements rendered in Smt Vimla vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2008 (10) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sriniwas Bajpai Tayyabun .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Urban Development Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) ADJ 128 (DB) (LB), and in Lakhan Lal vs. State Government of U.P. and others, reported in 1993 SCC Online All 486, that the Government can issue a show cause notice only on prima facie satisfaction. However, having gone through the said judgments, we find that they are distinguishable only on facts as in those cases administrative power has been seized by the State Government while issuing the show cause notice to the elected Chairperson of the Local Body. In this case, we find that the State Government has not taken away the financial and administrative power of the petitioner. It has, on receiving a report submitted by the District Magistrate, expressed a prima facie opinion finding the petitioner's guilt on certain counts and asking for her explanation. We do not find it a good case to show interference. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner shall submit his reply within three days and the State Government may be directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. 7. This petition is disposed of with a direction to petitioner to submit her reply within a week from today. If the said reply is submitted as aforesaid, the State Government shall consider her reply and then pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order. September 19, 2025 Renu/- WRIC No. 9060 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench