MOHANSINGH TANWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29th of November, 2000 passed by the Minister of State for Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra under section 313 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Maharashtra Municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, Municipalities Act ). By the said order the Municipal Council at Dhule came to be superseded by the Government. The Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2000 has been filed by two sitting Councillors and Writ Petition No. 5142 of 2000 has been filed by the three sitting Councillors, whereas Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 has been filed by the President of the Municipal Council, Dhule. By our interim order dated 1st December, 2000 the impugned order was stayed and, therefore, the elected body continued to be in office, including its President during the pendency of these petitions.

(2.) ON behalf of the State Government the Joint Secretary from the Urban Development Department of the State Government has filed an affidavit in reply in Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 to which the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. The said reply by the Government has been adopted in all the petitions as they challenge the same order. The concerned file from the Urban Development Department has been made available to us and the Chief Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Dhule has also made available the file maintained by him. All the three petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) ELECTIONS to the Municipal Council, Dhule were held in December, 1996 and 65 Councillors came to be elected. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 came to be elected as President of the said Council on 15th March, 1999 and the new Council was constituted on 15th March, 1997. A show cause notice dated 7th April, 2000, under section 313 (1) (e) of the Municipalities Act came to be issued against the President of the Municipal Council levelling in all six charges calling upon the President to submit a reply. In the said notice it was also stated that in case any documents were required, to submit the reply, the same could be obtained from the office of Collector, Dhule and Chief Officer, Municipal Council and submit the reply to the show cause notice within ten days after receiving the documents. This notice was purportedly received by the President on 17th April, 2000 at about 4. 00 p. m. and on 20th April, 2000 he submitted an application to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council as well as the Collector requesting copies of the documents stated therein to be made available to him. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Joint Secretary in the department of Urban Development at Mantralaya, Mumbai. Again on 28th June, 2000 the petitioner addressed yet another letter to the Collector reminding him to supply the documents. On the next day he addressed another letter to the Desk Officer in the Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya requesting for extension of time to submit the reply to the show cause notice. By letter dated 21st July, 2000 he communicated to the Desk Officer that he did not receive copies of the documents he had asked for from the Collector as well as the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Dhule. However, by letter dated 25th September, 2000, addressed to the Collector, he acknowledged that part of the documents requested by him were made available to him two days before. On 11th October, 2000 one Shri N. K. Teneja, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2000 and is a sitting Councillor, responded to the show cause notice dated 7th April, 2000 and specifically requested that before any order is passed, dissolving the Municipal Council, each and every Councillor should be heard and any order, without hearing the Councillors, would be illegal. On 10th October, 2000 a written representation was submitted by a body called Maharashtra Yuva Federation and this representation came to be forwarded by the Collector, Dhule to the Additional Secretary in the Department of Urban Development on 12th October, 2000. This representation stated that for a long time the demand of dissolution of the Municipal Council at Dhule was pending and it required to be considered by the State Government on priority so as to give justice to the citizens of Dhule. It was also demanded that an Administrator should be appointed forthwith by dissolving the Council and the tenure of the Administrator should be for a period of six years.