SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 81

J.CHELAMESWAR, ALTAMAS KABIR, S.S.NIJJAR
Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Chelameswar, J.

Leave granted.

2. The interpretation and purport of the second proviso to Sub-section(2) of Section 31(A) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Municipal Corporation Act”) falls for the consideration of this Court.

3. The constitution of the “Municipal Corporations”1 (in the State of Maharashtra), their powers, functions and various allied matters are regulated by the above-mentioned Act. Section 5(2)2 of the Act declares, every “Corporation” shall consist of a definite number of elected and a few nominated councillors. The number of elected Councillors with respect to any Corporation is determined on the basis of the population of that Municipal Corporation. The case on hand pertains to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, the third respondent herein, which has a total of 76 elected Councillors.

4. Election to the third respondent took place sometime in the month of February, 2007 and the Corporation was duly constituted with 76 elected Councillors. The break-up of the 76 Councillors is specified in the Judgment under appeal as follows:-

“(1) Lok Bharti Party 14

(2) Nationalist Congress Party 15

(3) Shiv Sena





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top