KALPANA MADHAV KIRAVE SOU Vs. CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Shri V. P. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service of the notice; Shri K. Y. Mandlik, Leaned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 waives service of the Notice and Shri S. B. Shetye, Addl. Government Pleader, waives service of the notice of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) NOW before we look at the relevant provisions and consider the challenge made, it would be perhaps better just to state briefly what credentials of the petitioners are and what are the facts and grounds for this petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have extensively argued this matter before us inviting our attention to several provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ).

(3.) THE petitioners and the respondent No. 8 are the Members of the respondent No. 2 Bhor Municipal Council, Bhor. The post of the President of the said Municipal Council was to fall vacant on 18th January, 2001. As required under the provisions of section 51 of the said Act, the respondent No. 4 viz. Sub Divisional Officers, Bhor issued a notice of the election of the President of the respondent No. 2 Council on 11th January, 2001. In the said notice, time was granted for filing of the nominations till 17th January, 2001 upto 12 noon and the meeting for election was fixed on 18th January, 2001. The Notice also indicated that the post of the President was reserved for a woman belonging to the Other Backward Class category. It was made clear in the notice that the respondent No. 4 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 51 (3) of the said Act, nominated one Shri Sanjay Kondetkar, the Tahsildar of Bhor, to act as a Returning Officer of the meeting. Till the time granted for filing of the nominations, six nomination papers were filed to the post of the President by the petitioner No. 1 alone. Hence according to the petitioners, there was no contest and the only formality of declaring the election of the petitioner No. 1 had remained to be complied with on the date of the election, i. e. 18th January, 2001.