(1.) Both these writ petitions are being summarily dismissed. However, as they involve a point of law of some interest, notice before admission was issued to respondent No. 1 as well as respondetn No. 11, the Municipal Council. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1, but had not the benefit of any submissions on behalf of the Municipal Council, as it had no appeared.
(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner who is a common petitioner in both these petitions, is a resident of Lonavala and had filed nomination papers in Ward Nos. 19 and 21 for the impending Municipal elections. Respondents Nos. 1 to 9 in both the petitions were the other candidates contesting the election respectively in Ward Nos. 19 and 21. When the nomination papers were being scrutiniswed, a common objection was raised to the candidature of the petitioner in respect of both the Wards. The objections was that the petitioner is a joint owner of some house properties in Lonavala, some of which are owned by Kukreja Brothers, a partnership firm. and some are owned by the petitioner along with his brothers by way of joint owners. In respect of all properties, bills as required by Section 150 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 were served upon the firm or the group of persons owning the property. In this manner the petitioner had in a law a bill served on him regarding the arrears.
(3.) After service of such bill the petitioner did pay some amounts but not the entire amount of the bills. Admittedly he paid only 1/4th amount of the bill where he is one of the four partners in Kukreja brothers and 1/3rd interest along with the two other co-owners. It is also an admitted other co-owners. it is also an admitted proposition that the rest of the balance of the tax remained unpaid. The petitioner has alleged that though the bills were year after year made in the name of Kukreja brothers, he always paid 1/4th or 1/3rd portion thereof for which the Municipality always issued him a receipt.