ANIL MAHADEO KEKLEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Collector, Respondent 2, on 14th April, 1995, held that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had incurred a disqualification, since they were having interest in the affairs of the Society in question. By the impugned order, the State Government reversed the decision. Hence this petition.

(2.) Heard Mr.S.G.Surana, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.N.Zambre, learned Assistant Government Pleader at length. According to Mr.Surana, Respondent No.6 is a Director of the Society, whereas wife of Respondent No.5 is also holding the same position in the said Society. As such, they have direct interest in the affairs of the Society which had submitted a tender. The same had been accepted by the Municipal Council with the vote of these two respondents, viz. respondents 5 and 6. Since they have got a direct interest, the Hon'ble Minister was not justified in reversing the order. Mr.Zambre appearing for the State resisted the submission. According to him, Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have neither a direct or indirect interest. He has referred us to the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Maharashtras Municipalities Act, 1965. We heard the learned counsel for the parties for quite sometime. However, it is reported that the Sangli Municipal Council, with the amalgamation of two other Councils, is now being converted into a Municipal Corporation. Mr.Zambre further reported that the Government has issued a Notification in this behalf on 1st August, 1997. In view of this subsequent event, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned order.

(3.) The petition is, therefore, disposed of. Rule discharged.