LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-190

SACHIN BALCHAND GAIDHANE Vs. SHAILESH DAVDUJI GABHANE

Decided On August 31, 2023
Sachin Balchand Gaidhane Appellant
V/S
Shailesh Davduji Gabhane Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the non-applicant no.2.

(2.) The applicants seek review of the judgment dtd. 8/8/2023 in Writ Petition No. 24 of 2023 inter alia on the ground that the applicants being the requisitionists who had submitted the requisition dtd. 20/12/2022 for moving a motion of no confidence against the non-applicant no.1 were the necessary parties in Writ Petition No. 24 of 2023. That writ petition had been filed by the non-applicant no.1 for challenging the motion of no confidence as passed against him in the special meeting of the Municipal Council that was convened on 26/12/2022.

(3.) Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the requisition signed by nine Councillors of Municipal Council Mohadi was submitted to the President of the Municipal Council on 20/12/2022 seeking a special meeting to be convened as the requisitionists proposed to move the motion of no confidence. Since the said motion was passed in the special meeting and a challenge was raised to the said motion by the non-applicant no.1, the applicants as requisitionists were the necessary parties for being heard on the challenge to the said motion of no confidence. Without impleading the applicants, the writ petition was filed. The writ petition was entertained and in absence of the applicants it was held that the motion of no confidence was passed against the non-applicant no.1 in a manner contrary to Sec. 55-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act of 1965'). In support of the said contention reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench in Hindurao Dnyanu Shirtode & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [1998(3) Mh.L.J. 622]. It was thus submitted that the judgment under review ought to be recalled since the writ petition was decided in absence of the applicants.