SOMNATH CHINTAMAN VASKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are Elected Corporators of the Navi-Mumbai Municipal Corporation-respondent No. 2, by this petition challenge the nomination of respondents Nos. 5 to 12 who are also Corporators and members of the standing committee of the respondent No. 2-Corpora-tion.

(2.) At the hearing of the petition, however, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that he restricts his challenge in this petition to the nomination of only respondents Nos. 9 and 10 as members of the Standing committee of the respondent No. 2-corporation. It is an admitted position that the General Election to the respondent No. 2 corporation was held on 10-4-2005. Result of the election was declared on 11-4-2005. The total strength of the elected Corporators in the respondent No. 2-Corporation is 90. At the election, 48 candidates belonging to the Nationalist Congress Party (N.C.P.) were elected as Corporators, 16 candidates belonging to Congress (I) were elected as Corporators, 14 candidates belonging to Shiv Sena Party were elected as Corporators, 1 candidate belonging to Bharatiya Janta Party (B.J.P.) was elected as Corporator and 11 candidates who had contested election as independents were also elected.

(3.) According to the petitioners, 14 members of the Shiv Sena party formed Aghadi with 1 Corporator of B.J.P. and 6 Corporators who were elected as independents, which is registered under Rule 3(l)(a) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Disqualification Rules, 1987. On 23-2-2007, the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 11/2007 called "Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Ordinance 2007 was promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra. By that ordinance section 31-A was added to the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It is common ground that the respondent No. 2-Corporation is constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of brevity). Subsequently, the said Ordinance has been passed by the Legislature and section 31-A has become part of the Act. It appears that in March, 2007, 8 Corporators who were members of the Standing Committee retired because of the rotation policy and therefore those 8 vacancies were to be filled in. On 26-3-2007, the Secretary of the respondent No. 2- Corporation issued a notice convening a General Body Meeting of the Corporation on 13-4-2007 at 11 a.m. In the agenda one of the subject before the meeting was filling in 8 vacancies on the Standing Committee. By letter dated 9-4-2007, the Municipal Secretary informed the Mayor of the respondent No. 2 that in accordance with the provisions of section 31-A of the Act, 8 vacancies of the Standing Committee are to be filled in by nominations of four Corporators of N.C.P., two Corporators of Congress (1) & two Corporators belonging to Shiv Sena Aghadi ( which consists of 14 corporators of Shiv Sena Party, 1 corporator of B.J.P. and 6 corporators who have been elected independently). It appears that the leader of each Political group was intimated by the Municipal Secretary about the number of nominations to be made by each political group. According to the petitioners, in response to the letter, the leader of the Shivsena group informed the Mayor that the petitioners are to be nominated as members of the Standing Committee in the quota allotted to Shiv Sena Aghadi. According to the petitioners, in the General Body Meeting of the Corporation, however, which was held on 13-4-2007 a strange procedure was followed whereby the nomination of the petitioners as members of the Standing Committee was rejected and in their place respondents Nos. 9 and 10 were elected as members of the Standing Committee. According to the petitioners, appointment of the respondents Nos. 9 and 10 as members of the Standing Committee by the Resolution of the General Body dated 13th April, 2007 is contrary to law and therefore, is liable to be set aside.