JAYRAM TOLAJI SHINDE Vs. SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this court, by its order in the case of Vasant Gite and Another Versus Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik and others in Writ Petition No.2564 of 2007 along with several other petitions decided on April 30, 2007 had occasion to consider the provisions of section 31-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Amendment Ordinance, 2007 which subsequent thereto was substituted by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2007 which hereinafter shall be referred to as Amendment Act. The learned Division Bench there had first considered the issue as to how to arrive at the relative quotient for being represented for the purpose of section 31-A(2). Taking an illustration, it was noted that if the strength of general assembly is 108 it will have to be divided by 16 which is the strength of the standing committee. This will work out to a quotient of 6.75. Then take the quotient of 6.75 and divide by the number of elected councillors to get the relative number of seats for representation on the standing committee. If it be a fraction, then the fraction of 0.50 or more be considered as one. The fraction of 0.49 and less was to be ignored. The court then proceeded to answer the second question of the proper construction of sub-section (2) of Section and the proviso. The Division Bench noted that firstly members have to be nominated from amongst the registered parties or Aghadi or front which have the necessary quotient based on the relative strength of their membership of the general assembly. It was then observed that while so nominating it will be open by virtue of the proviso for a political party as long as the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 are not attracted to nominate an elected councillor not belonging to the recognized or registered or group to the standing committee as set out in sub-section (2). The court then proceeded to hold that after this exercise has been completed, if there be any balance seats those would be filled in by nomination by the Corporation from the parties or groups or independents not already represented. SLPs. being No(s). 16368-1639/2007 and SLP No. 15661 of 2007 had been preferred by the Petitioners in those petitions which were dismissed as withdrawn on 10.07.2009.

(2.) Another Division Bench in Writ Petition No.5857 of 2008 along with W.P. No.5287 of 2008, on the issue as to whether the party can nominate a person not its member, was of the view that the view taken in Vasant Gite and another (supra) was not correct and accordingly formulated the following question to be considered by the larger Bench :

(3.) The issue of representation of the standing committee, it appears came up for consideration once again in Writ Petition No.7938 of 2008. After noting the judgment in Vasant Gite (supra) the learned Bench was pleased to formulate the following questions to be considered by the Larger Bench. We have renumbered the questions for the purpose of answering the questions in both references :