VIJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Khapre, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Adv. Tathod, for the petitioner and Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.1. Nobody appears for the respondent nos.2 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner was a member nominated to Akola Municipal Corporation and was not a member, who was elected, in the year 2002. Although the petitioner was a nominated member and not an elected one, the then Mayor of the Municipal Corporation recommended his name for being appointed as a Leader of the House. This recommendation was made by the then Mayor in view of her power under Sec. 19-1A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - now re-named as the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1949").

(3.) Respondent no.3 Surendra Kumar Shah, noticing that the petitioner not being an elected member and only being a nominated member was appointed by the then Municipal Commissioner as a Leader of the House, on the basis of the recommendation made by the then Mayor under Sec. 19-1A of the Act of 1949, made a complaint to the respondent no.1 for recovery of the expenses incurred on account of such appointment and working of the petitioner.