MANOHAR KRISHNA MADHAVI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has challenged the order dated 11th August, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane in Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2004 filed under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') being a reference made under Section 12 r/w Section 405 of the said Act. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Application are as under.

(2.) The applicant contested the election, which was held on 26th March 2000. The nomination for the post of a Councilor from ward no.38 was filed on 29th February 2000. The applicant was declared as elected for the aforesaid ward no.38 by declaration dated 30th March 2000. The matter was raised before the Municipal Commissioner by the present complainant by alleging that the applicant should be declared as disqualified in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(i)(f) of the said Act as the applicant had prior to filing of the nomination, entered into an agreement with the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'said Corporation') and the benefit of the said contract was received by the applicant and that the contract was performed during the time when the applicant was to work as a Councilor. It was also alleged by the complainant that the applicant received monies towards contractual obligations to be performed by the applicant. The said complaint was considered by the Commissioner of the said Corporation and a reference was made to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane as per the provisions of Section 12 r/w Section 405 of the said Act. In the course of deciding the said reference, parties had laid evidence and the main witnesses were the employees of the Corporation who have placed before the Court necessary record in relation to the complaint which was filed by the complainant.

(3.) The applicant was running two firms by name M/s. M.K. Constructions. It is pertinent to note that the names of these two firms are one and the same. The applicant was proprietor of the said firms. The applicant in the course of his business under the banner M/s. M.K. Constructions used to maintain dichotomy so far as these two firms are concerned with reference to the parties with whom he used to deal with.