KUMAR GHORAKHNATH SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the proceedings of the present Writ Petitions, a learned Single Judge of this Court [Mr.Justice R. M. Savant (as His Lordship then was)] was considering an issue in regard to disqualification of the petitioners as members of Mahabaleshwar Municipal Council under the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short 'the Disqualification Act ').

(2.) In the course of adjudication of such proceedings, one of the issue which fell for consideration of the Court was the effect of Sec. 62(2B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short 'the Municipalities Act ') vis a vis the provisions of Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Act. The petitioners had placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shah Faruq Shabir and others vs. Govindrao Ramu Vasave and others,2016(5) Mh.L.J. 436. to contend that the Full Bench had interpreted the said provisions and had taken a view that there was no inconsistency or repugnancy in the provisions of the Disqualification Act as against the provisions of the second proviso to Sec. 63 (2-B) of the Municipalities Act, as both the laws operated in different fields. It was also observed that the proviso to Sec. 63 (2-B) of the Municipalities Act cannot travel beyond the scope of substantive portion of Sec. 63 itself. It was also observed by the Full Bench that the said provision cannot be equated with an 'aghadi' or 'front' under Sec. 2(a) for the purposes of invocation of the provisions of the Disqualification Act . It was also held that the term 'original political party' or 'aghadi' appearing in Sec. 5 would mean the party at its national level and would not mean a "municipal party." Considering the enunciation of law in the decision of the Full Bench, the petitioners had contended before the learned Single Judge that the impugned orders disqualifying them as members of the Municipal Council was illegal requiring them to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, on behalf of the complainants ( the contesting respondents ) the correctness3 of the decision of the Full Bench in Shah Faruq Shabir's case (supra) was questioned and more particularly, as recorded in paragraph 12 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which reads thus:-