DAGDU VITHOBA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by two voters challenging1 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution certain important stages of an election to the Jalgaon Municipal Council due to be held on July 1, 1967. The petitioners claim to be interested in contesting the forthcoming elections, and stated broadly, their grievance is that the delimitation of constituencies is arbitrary, that the list of voters was not kept for public inspection for the requisite period and that three seats reserved for women were allotted to some three wards indiscriminately.

(2.) PRIOR to June 15, 1966, Municipal Administration in the State of Maharashtra was governed by four different enactments which were applicable in the different areas comprised in the State. Those enactments were: (1) the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901; (2) the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925; (3) the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922; and (4) the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956. With a view to providing a uniform pattern for the administration of municipal affairs in the State, the State Legislature enacted the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (Maharashtra Act XL of 1965), hereinafter called 'the Act'. It was passed on September. 10, 1965, but the various provisions thereof came into force in three stages by notifications issued by the Government from time to time in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 1(3) of the Act.

(3.) ON March 11, 1967, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 345A(5) of the Act specifying July 1, 1967, as the date for the purposes of that sub -section. As a result of this notification, the term of the office of the Councilors who are deemed to be elected to the Jalgaon Municipal Council would expire on July 1, 1967, and therefore, the new elections to the Municipal Council have to be held on or before that date. This notification is also challenged by the petitioners though it is not clear how this particular notification affects any of the rights vested in the petitioners under the Act.