RAMESHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL SABOO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by Shri Sunil Tatkare the then State Minister for Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, whereby the present petitioner Shri Saboo is removed from the post of President, Municipal Council, Risod and further that, he has been held disqualified for contesting election for six years on any post as a member of the Municipal Council. This order dated 7-9-2001 is communicated to the petitioner by the Desk Officer by letter dated 12-9-2001.

(2.) THE petitioner was issued a show-cause notice in accordance with the provisions of section 55-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of brevity ). As per the show-cause notice in all six charges were levelled against the petitioner. These six charges are as under:

(3.) THERE is no dispute that this charge-sheet was duly served on the petitioner and the petitioner replied the same by his reply dated 27-6-2001. While replying the charges so far as regard the charge No. 1 was concerned the petitioner tried to explain that in accordance with the provisions of section 81 (1) the Municipal Council is supposed to hold the general body meeting once in two months and if no such meeting could be held for whatsoever reasons, it may be the duty of the Chief Officer, Municipal Council to bring it to the notice of the Collector concerned and the Collector thereafter in consultation with the Chief Officer, should hold the meeting. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Government did not provide a regular Chief Officer for this Municipal Council. Either there used to be a constant change in the Chief Officers or who so ever were sent as Chief Officer of this Municipal Council were not attending the work regularly. According to him on certain occasions the Chief Officers were appointed for this Municipal Council who were holding post of Chief Officer of this Council by way of additional charge. Because of this situation the meeting could not be held by the Chief Officers and it was the failure on the part of the Chief Officer to have not communicated the same to the Collector. The petitioner, therefore, suggested through his reply that in fact the action should have been taken against the concerned Chief Officer and not the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that he cannot be held responsible for not holding of the meetings in accordance with law. The petitioner further tried to point out that during his tenure, there were about 9 Chief Executive Officers changed in the Municipal Council and out of them most of the Chief Officers were holding it by way of additional charge and they even did not remain present in the Municipal Council, even once in six months. The petitioner therefore, claimed to be totally exonerated of this charge.