BHARATBHUSHAN SONAJIRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is elected President of the Municipal Council, Beed. The petitioner assumed office in December 2016. The respondent No. 5 filed proceedings U/Sec. 55(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "Act of 1965") before the State Government to remove the petitioner from his office as a President. It appears that, the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development Department issued notice. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development Department transferred the proceedings to the State Minister. The petitioner is assailing the order/endorsement dtd. 3/3/2021 transferring the proceedings to the State Minister. The petitioner also assails the communication dtd. 5/3/2021 calling for the report in respect of complaints against the petitioner from the Collector Beed for deciding proceedings U/Sec. 55(A) of the Act of 1965.

(2.) Miss Talekar, the learned advocate for the petitioner strenuously contends that, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 5 is politically motivated. The brother of the petitioner belongs to the Shivsena party, whereas the respondent No. 5 belongs to Nationalist Congress Party. To settle the personal and political scores, the complaint U/Sec. 55(A) of the Act of 1965 is filed. The learned advocate submits that, the State Minister is from N.C.P. and for that reason matter has been transferred by the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development to the State Minister.

(3.) Miss Talekar, the learned advocate further contends that, as per the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India under signature of the Hon'ble Governor complaint ought to have been dealt with and decided by the Hon'ble Minister and could not have transferred the same to the State Minister. The Rules of Business under Article 166 of the Constitution are framed under the orders of the Hon'ble Governor. The Hon'ble Minister does not have power to alter the business rules. Instructions regarding business of the Government issued under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business made under Article 166 of the Constitution defines the minister incharge as the minister appointed by the Hon'ble Governor to be incharge of the Department of Government to which the case belongs. The case has to be decided by the Minister incharge. As such, it is only the Minister for Urban Development Department, who is competent to decide the same. He does not possess any power to delegate the decision to the State Minister. Under Rule 15 of the Instructions the powers to supplement the instructions are also required to be issued by the Hon'ble Governor on the advise of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister. Reliance is also placed on Clause 10(1) of the Instructions framed by the Hon'ble Governor that the Minister Incharge of the Department shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that department or part of the department. In view of that, it was erroneous on the part of the Hon'ble Minister to delegate the powers. The learned advocate relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Smt. Godavari Shamrao Parulekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 1128.