DATABHAU ANNASAHEB PATHRIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner by filing this petition has assailed the order passed by the mayor, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (respondent No. 3) granting recognition for appointment as a leader of opposition in favour of respondent No. 4 in exercise of powers under section 19 (1) (AA) of the Bombay Provincial municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'. ).

(3.) The petitioner is elected member of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The elections to the Municipal Corporation were held on 10-4-2005. It is stated that one Shri. Tarvindarsingh Dhillan was declared as a leader of opposition by the Mayor of Municipal corporation, Aurangabad. According to the petitioner, recognition in favour of Shri. Dhillan as a leader of opposition was contrary to the established procedure as, at the relevant time, the petitioner was nominated to be the leader of opposition by the party High Command. The petitioner further contends that infact he was chosen as a leader so as to discharge the functions of the leader of opposition in the Municipal corporation, Aurangabad. It is further contended that in the meanwhile, as many as 10 members belonging to Congress I party submitted an application under their signatures on 29-4-2006 requesting the respondent No. 3, mayor to declare the petitioner as the leader of opposition in the Municipal Corporation, aurangabad. It is also contended that the application tendered by the members of the corporation was supported by their affidavits. The Mayor of the corporation on being satisfied regarding the candidature of the petitioner of being supported by 10 out of 18 elected members of the Congress I party, accorded approval to the nomination of petitioner as a leader of opposition vide letter dt. 8-5-2006. The further development which has occurred in the matter is that the President of the Aurangabad City congress I Committee tendered a letter requesting the Mayor of the Municipal corporation to nominate respondent No. 4 Abdul sajed Abdul Sattar as the leader of opposition. According to the petitioner, the President of the aurangabad City Congress I Committee had no authority to nominate respondent No. 4. It is further contended that on 29-6-2006, respondent no. 4 tendered an application signed by 11 members requesting the Mayor to recommend him as a leader of opposition. It further appears that as no steps were taken by the Mayor in pursuance to the application tendered by respondent No. 4, he approached this court by filing Writ Petition No. 3862/06. The present petitioner was arrayed as party to said writ petition. Present petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 Mayor tendered their reply to the petition. It is further contended by the petitioner that as soon as the petition was withdrawn, respondent no. 3 immediately passed an order thereby nominating respondent No. 4 as a leader of opposition in the Municipal Corporation, aurangabad on the ground that the candidature of respondent No. 4 is backed by 14 out of 19 counsellors belonging to Congress I party. According to the petitioner, the act of granting recognition for nomination of respondent No. 4 as a leader of opposition by the respondent No. 3 is a malafide act. The petitioner as such is challenging the order of granting recognition to the nomination of respondent No. 4 as a leader of opposition, by filing this petition.