SURESH JAGANNATH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before this Court are questioning the suspension of nominations to its Standing Committee by Municipal Corporation, Akola, in its meeting dated 28.02.2011 by Respondent No. 1 State Government under Section 451 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act). The nominations have been made under Section 31 A(2) thereof.

(2.) After the petition was filed before this Court on 11.03.2011, this Court issued notices to the respondents and on 25.03.2011 ordered status quo till the hearing of the matter for admission. On 20.04.2011, the contention about Section 451 were noted and Respondents No. 1 & 2 then agreed to comply with the procedure under Section 451 and follow principles of natural justice. In view of this, the matter was kept pending and Respondents No. 1 & 2 were permitted to hear the petitioners. Accordingly, State Government passed further appropriate orders on 25.05.2011 and maintained its earlier order dated 08.03.2011. Petition was then amended on 03.06.2011 to raise challenge to this later order dated 25.05.2011. In this background, we have heard matter finally by making Rule returnable forthwith at the request of Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Municipal Commissioner and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

(3.) According to Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel, issue is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 22.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2010, where this Court found that consultation envisaged under Section 31 A in the process of nomination is a political question and this Court is not expected to decide the same in exercise of its power of judicial review. This Court also found that said consultation is part of process of nominating Councillors and Legislature has not laid down any mode and manner for its exercise. The said consultation is, therefore, held to be not mandatory.