LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-162

PRADIP VASANTRAO GAURKHEDE Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AMRAVATI

Decided On April 05, 2016
Pradip Vasantrao Gaurkhede Appellant
V/S
Divisional Commissioner And Regional Director Municipal Administration Amravati Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.1, in his capacity as Regional Director appointed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965. (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act, 1965").

(3.) The Grampanchayat of Tiwasa was declared as Nagar Panchayat on 10th April, 2015 and the elections of the Nagar Panchayat for the first time were held on 1 st October, 2015. On 30th November, 2015, the elections of Chairman and Vice -Chairman were held. The petitioners and respondent No.4 are the elected members of the Nagar Panchayat, Tiwasa. While petitioner Nos.1 to 4 belong to one political party, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 belong to different political party. The respondent No.4 belongs to another political party. On 4 th December, 2015, Collector, Amravati, the competent authority, under the Act, 1965 convened a special meeting of Nagar Panchayat for the purposes of nominations to be made to the subjects committees, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Act 1965 and appointed Tahsildar respondent No.3, Tiwasa as the Presiding Officer for the special meeting. The respondent No.3 considering the strength of members of different political parties requested the leaders of the political parties to submit the names of members, who were to be nominated on behalf of their parties for the subjects committees. It appears that initially, respondent No.4 suggested only one name for being nominated for each of the subjects committees and when he was informed by the respondent No.3 that three names were to be nominated on behalf of his party, the respondent No.4 accordingly submitted three names for being nominated on behalf of his party.