NARAYANDEVI TULSHIRAM PALLOD Vs. DATTATRAYA MARUTI BAWALEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS in Civil Application No. 1997 of 1993 seek leave to be added as respondents to the writ petition which was already disposed of, whereas the same applicants by Civil Application No. 1996 of 1993 seek review of the order of this Court, dated 7th April, 1993.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1417 of 1993 is the President of Mahableshwar Nagar Vikas Sanghatana and also the President of the Mahableshwar Municipal Council. According to the original petitioner some of the members of the Council were elected as members of the aghadi. Subsequently, they resigned and the original petitioner had initiated proceedings before the Collector under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the 'Disqualification Act' and the said proceedings were pending. The very same members who had resigned had also signed a resolution expressing no confidence in the President -original petitioner along with three other independent members and had requested the Collector to requisition a meeting to discuss the no -confidence motion.

(3.) CIVIL Application No. 1997 of 1993 is filed by the said four persons who are alleged to have become disqualified. According to them the Disqualification Act does not apply to their case inasmuch as they were not elected on the basis of an aghadi or a sanghatana. They claim to have been elected as independent candidates and it is subsequently one year later that the aghadi was formed and was accordingly intimated to the Collector. It is also contended that even assuming that Disqualification Act applies, the disqualification proceedings by itself will not disentitle them from participating in the proceedings or from holding their office and as such the process of requisitioning a meeting to discuss the no -confidence motion should not have been stayed as has - been done by the earlier order, dated 7th April, 1993. It is also contended that out of seven members of the aghadi since four of them have resigned i.e. more than 50% it does not attract the provisions of the Disqualification Act.