SARAWATI S WAGHMODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. THE petitioner challenges the resolution of no confidence motion dt. 30th Dec. , 2003, on the ground that, consequent to the amendment brought about to Section 55 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, hereinafter called as "the said Act", by virtue of Ordinance No. II of 2004, dt. 28th Jan. , 2004, hereinafter called as "the said Ordinance", whereby the immunity granted from any resolution of no confidence motion is extended to the period of three years/ instead of original period of two years', from the date of election of the President. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner was elected on 3rd of Dec. , 2001, and a period of three years', therefore, would expire on 2nd of Dec. , 2004, and as the resolution of no confidence was passed on 30th Dec. 2003, it cannot override the statutory provisions contained in Section 55 (1) of the said Act and, therefore, the said resolution cannot be given effect to.

(2.) FEW facts, relevant for the decision are that, the petitioner was elected as the President of the Municipal Council on 3rd of Dec. , 2001. On or about 22nd of Dec. , 2003, the Councillors of Municipal Council of kallamb requisitioned a special meeting to express no confidence against the petitioner and, accordingly, meeting was held on 30th Dec. , 2003, wherein the no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed by majority. On 28th Jan. ,2004, the said Ordinance came to be promulgated, whereby the period of two years specified under proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 55 was amended by extending the said period to three years, from the date of election of the President. On 28th Jan. , 2004 itself, the Election Commission initiated steps for filling up the vacancy occurred in the office of the President of the said Council consequent to the passing of the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Accordingly, 20th feb. , 2004, was scheduled to be the date for authenticating the voters list. The election programme was declared on 23rd of Feb. , 2004 and, accordingly, 20th March, 2004, was scheduled to be the date for polling for the purpose of election of the President to the said Council. Meanwhile , on 11th March, 2004, the present petition came to be filed which came up for hearing for admission on 15th of March, 2004, and, while issuing nonces to the respondents, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 6 assured to the court that, the voting would be postponed till disposal of this petition and, accordingly, the election for the post of the president of the said Council was postponed.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and, on perusal of the records, the point which arises for consideration is whether the amendment brought about to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 55 is retrospective in nature and, therefore, any action taken contrary to the said provision would be ab initio bad in law.