NITIN MANGA SHIRSAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both writ petitions under Article 226 of the constitution of India are clubbed together since common challenge and common question of law is raised by the two petitions. All three petitioners (one in Writ petition No. 74/2006 and two in Writ Petition No. 540/2006) are elected councillors of the Municipal Corporation of Dhule. The petitioner in Writ petition No. 74/2006, in addition; was also elected as member of the Standing committee of the said Corporation for two years. He along with 7 others retired as members of the Standing Committee on due completion of their tenure.

(2.) The factual matrix in both the writ petitions is common and undisputed, which can be narrated in brief as follows : general elections of Dhule Municipal Corporation were held on 8th december, 2003. Total 67 Councillors were elected and 5 were co-opted. Thus, the strength of Municipal Corporation is 72. On 30-12-2003, in the first General body Meeting of the Corporation, Mayor was elected, so also, 16 members of the standing Committee were elected. On expiry of one year, 8 members of the standing Committee, drawn by following procedure of lots, retired on 1st december, 2004 and were duly substituted by new 8 members. Similarly, on 1st december, 2005, senior 8 members of the then Standing Committee retired and in their places, 8 new members were added to the Standing Committee by election held on 31st December, 2005. The Municipal Secretary of Dhule Municipal Corporation issued a notice dated 2nd January, 2006, convening a meeting of the Standing Committee on 10th January, 2006, for the purpose of election of Chairman of the Standing committee. This notice and consequent meeting is under challenge as illegal being contrary to the provisions of section 21 of the Bombay Provincial municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (henceforth referred to as "the said Act" for the sake of brevity).

(3.) Heard Shri S. S. Chaudhary, Advocate, and Senior Counsel, Shri V. J. Dixit, for petitioners in respective writ petitions; Government Pleader Shri E. P. Sawant, for respondent No. 1/state in Writ Petition No. 74/2006 and Senior counsel Shri P. M. Shah, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Assistant Government pleader, Shri K. J. Ghute Patil for State/respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 540/2006, has practically adopted the arguments advanced by Senior Counsel, shri P. M. Shah, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 74/2006 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 540/2006. Respondent Nos. 4 to 19 in both the writ petitions are present members of the Standing Committee. Respondent Nos. 4, 10 to 15 are represented by Advocate Mrs. M. L. Sangit. By mutual consent of the Lawyers, rule was made returnable forthwith and matter was heard for final disposal.