ABDUL RASHID Vs. VIKAS S/O RATANLAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K.C. Sant, and Mr.Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for petitioners inrespective petitions, Mr. Goolam Wahanvati, learnedAdvocate General with Mr. E.P. Savant, Government Pleaderand Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P., Mr. Mandlik, Mr. Soman, Mr. S.R.Barlinge, and Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel forrespective respondents.

(2.) BOTH these Writ Petitions are pertaining tothe provisions of Section 19(1)(AA) of the BombayProvincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, andtherefore, are being disposed of by common judgment.Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2002 is filed by the petitionerswho are Corporators of Aurangabad Municipal Corporationelected in the elections which were held in the year1999, belonging to Congress (I) Party. It appears thatas per the practice then prevailing, the then Mayor, Mr.Karad, designated the petitioner No. 2 as a Leader ofOpposition in the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad andby the letter dated 17.5.2001 the Mayor informed thatexcept party in power the 23 Corporators from theopposition have consented for the appointment of thepetitioner No. 2 as a Leader of Opposition and accordinglythe Mayor issued a letter to that effect to theCommissioner of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation.However, later on after the election of the Mayor was heldin 2002, the controversy in respect of nomination and/orrecognition of the Leader of Opposition started and thecontroversy commenced in view of the introduction ofSection 19(1) (AA) of the Bombay Provincial MunicipalCorporations Act, 1949, which came into force on8.1.2002. As per provisions of this section, theCongress (I) Party claims that their representative inthe House shall be recognised as a Leader of Oppositionby the Mayor. As against this, it is the contention ofthe Mayor that the 22 Corporators from the opposition, bymajority, have consented for recognising the respondentNo. 3 as a Leader of Opposition, and therefore, he shallbe recognised as a Leader of Opposition. The respondentNo. 3 is elected as a Corporator of the MunicipalCorporation, Aurangabad in the year 1999 as anindependent candidate. Accordingly the Mayor has issueda letter dated 4.7.2002 to the Commissioner. Whileissuing the said letter, the Mayor has relied on theprovisions of Section 19(1)(AA) of the Bombay ProvincialMunicipal Corporations Act, 1949. This letter ischallenged by the petitioners by filing this writpetition seeking an interpretation of the provisions ofSection 19(1)(AA) of the Act.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to analyse the respectivechallenges raised by the petitioners, it is necessary tonote the partywise position of the Corporators in theAurangabad Municipal Corporation, which is as under : (i)Shivsena 19 (ii)Bharatiya Janata Party 17 (iii)Indian National Congress(I) 12 (iv)Nationalist Congress Party 04 (v)RPI(Ambedkar Group) 03 (vi)RPI (Gade Group) 03 (vii)Muslim League 01 (viii)Communist Party 01 (ix)Samajwadi Party 01(x)Independent 22Total :83 The relevant provision which was introduced in the BombayProvincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is asfollows: -