Smt. Sujata Arun Kale v. Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence on both the counts this petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
Judgment
Smt. Sujata Arun Kale ..Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ramesh Dube i/b. M/s. Jay and Co., for the petitioner. Mr. V.P. Patankar for respondent No.1. Mr. V.A. Gangal and Mr. Ashok Gade for respondent No.2. Mr.Samir Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/b. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, for respondent No.5. Mr. P.N. Joshi, for respondent No.7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE: 5th October, 2010. P.C.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for setting aside the nomination of respondent No.7 as a member of the Standing Committee and for further direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to nominate the petitioner as such in place of respondent No.7. 2 wp-4667-10
The general elections for the Nashik Municipal Corporation were held on 2nd February, 2007 and the petitioner along with two other Councillors got elected from the Bahujan Samaj Party in the said elections. Thereafter respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were nominated as members of the Standing Committee as required under Section 20 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Corporations Act for short). However, it appears that respondent No.6 resigned and thus one post on the Standing Committee had fallen vacant and respondent No.7 came to be nominated against the said vacant post. The petitioner contends that he ought to have been nominated instead of respondent No.7, who represents the Peasants and Workers Party, which has only one member in the Corporation as against three members of the petitioner’s party i.e. B.S.P. It was also submitted that respondent No.7 was a member of the reconstituted Standing Committee on 5th April, 2006 but subsequently on the expiry of his term he had retired and, therefore, he was not qualified to be renominated.
On both these grounds we do not find any force to entertain this petition and more so in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jayram Tolaji Shinde & Ors vs. The Secretary, Urban 3 wp-4667-10 Development Department & Ors., in Writ Petition No.5287 of 2008 and other petitions rendered on 1st April, 2010. Even otherwise the scheme of Section 20 of the Corporations Act does not disqualify a retired member from being renominated on the Standing Committee.
Hence on both the counts this petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.)
(B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — s. 20.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Oct 2010. The bench was U D SALVI, B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.