Sunil Kaluram Naik & Ors. v. Arvind Mahadev Savalenkar & Anr.

.......... Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Kanade i/b Ashoka Law Firm, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.B.Shetye i/b S.V.Gavand, for the Respondent No.1. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent No.2. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 04th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. This Writ Petition challenges an order of the Collector, Raigad district in Disqualification Application No.39/2009. That disqualification application was filed by the Respondent No.1 (Arvind Savalenkar) seeking to disqualify the Petitioners and particularly, the Petitioner No.1 (Sunil Kaluram Naik) under section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986. 2 The order impugned in this Writ Petition has been delivered on 27.04.2011. The Petitioners before me stand disqualified by virtue of this order. 3 During the pendency of this Writ Petition which has been instituted on 02.05.2011, a request was made for interim reliefs, but the same was denied. It was noted that the special meeting for holding the election of the President of the Nagar Parishad, Panvel was scheduled on

01.05.2011. That election has also been held. *2* wp.3567.11.912.sxw 4 It is stated that the term of office of the Petitioners who are disqualified councillors will come to an end even by efflux of time and now a fresh election will have to be held to the said Nagar Parishad. 5 The only apprehension that was expressed by Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that if on account of subsequent developments the Writ Petition is disposed of, there may be an impediment for the Petitioners to contest a fresh election. In other words, the order of disqualification would preclude or prevent them from contesting the elections for the post of councillor or the member of the local authority. 6 This apprehension does not seem to be well founded because even if the Petitioners are disqualified in terms of the aforementioned provision, there is nothing in the subject enactment by which the Petitioners will be prevented or prohibited from contesting a fresh election.

A perusal of the provisions of the subject Act does not indicate that the Petitioners would be ineligible to contest a fresh election. Section 3A of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 reads thus:- “3A. A councillor or, as the case may be, a member belonging to any political party, aghadi or front who is disqualified for being a councillor or as the case may be, a member under section 3 shall also be disqualified to hold any remunerative political post for duration of the period commencing from the date of his disqualification till the date on which the term of his office as such councillor or, as the case may be, a member expires or till the date on which he contests an election to a local authority and is declared elected, whichever is earlier. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, the expression “remunerative political post” means any office, under the State Government where the salary or (i) remuneration for such office is paid out of the public revenue of the State Government or Consolidated Fund of *3* wp.3567.11.912.sxw the State; or under a body, whether incorporated or not, which (ii) is wholly or partially owned by the State Government and the salary or remuneration for such office is paid by such body; or (iii) under a local authority, where the salary or remuneration for such office is paid by the local authority out of such local authority’s fund, except where such salary or remuneration paid is compensatory in nature.” 7 A bare perusal of the same indicates that the Legislature does not intend that the consequences of disqualification should be visited on a member even after the term for which he has been elected or nominated has come to an end.