VANDANA Vs. COLLECTOR AMARAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final hearing immediately.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.

(3.) To state in brief, admitted facts are that the petitioner was the member of Indian National Congress (I) and as a candidate of that party, she was elected as member of the Municipal Council, Shendurjanaghat. The election for the post of the President of Municipal Council was scheduled to be held on 17/12/2006. Respondent No. 3 was also one of the Municipal Councillor, who was elected as the candidate of Indian National Congress. A meeting was held on 17/12/2006 in which all the new elected members of the Municipal Council from Indian National Congress were present along with some other political leaders of the party from the districts. According to the complaint lodged by respondent No. 3 with the Collector under the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in that meeting it was unanimously resolved to sponsor one Mr. Surendra Ande, as candidate of Indian National Congress Party, who was also elected as a Municipal Councillor, for the post of President of Municipal Council. As per the said resolution one Mr. Virendra Jagtap, who was President of District Congress Party, Amravati (Rural) issued a whip or direction to all the elected members of that party to vote in favour of Surendra Ande for the post of President. When the meeting was held for the election for the post of President of the Municipal Council, there were in all three candidates. Out of them, one candidate withdrew and the actual election was held between the two candidates, one was Mr. Surendra Ande and another candidate was sponsored by Shivsena party. Members of Municipal Council were required to vote by raising their hands in favour of respective candidates. Eight members voted in favour of Surendra Ande and nine members including the present petitioner voted for Mr. Pintu @ Prashand Sawarkar - a candidate of Shivsena and he was elected. The petitioner, who was elected as candidate of congress party, did not vote for the candidate of her own party and voted for the candidate of the opposite party, due to which Surendra Ande was defeated. According to respondent No. 3 the petitioner had voted in breach of the whip and thus she had incurred disqualification under the Act. On his complaint, which was registered as Petition No. 9/2006, the Collector held the enquiry and after recording the evidence led by the concerned parties, the Collector declared the petitioner as disqualified for the post of Municipal Councillor as per section 3 of.the Act. That order has been challenged in the present petition by the petitioner.