The President of a Municipal Council, though elected directly and not as a Councillor, is deemed to be a Councillor and is subject to the same disqualifications as an elected Councillor under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.

JUDGMENT - Kotwal V.S.,J.- This petition raises a short question as to whether acts or

omissions disqualifying a person from becoming or acting as a Councillor of a Municipal Council under section 16 read with section 44 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (shortly stated as “the said Act”), also so disqualify the “President” who is elected as such directly by the voters of the Council and who becomes a “deemed Councillor” ex-officio on. account thereof, though not elected as a Councillor.

2. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 and respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were elected as Councillors to the Vita Municipal Council in the ejection held on 7-11-1974. Petitioner No. I was elected as President at the said election directly by all the voters of the Council under the Amended Act.

3. A contract was entered into on behalf of the Municipal Council by the Chief Officer on October I, 1975, with the Vita Co-operative Electric Supply Society Ltd. (shortly stated as “the said Society”) for the supply of electricity for street lights. A resolution was unanimously passed in the meeting of the Council held on July 29, 1976 ratifying the said contract. The five petitioners admittedly voted in favour of the said resolution though each one of them admittedly held share in the said Society and as such held some interest thefeip.

4. On or about August 20, 1977, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 moved the Collector of Sangli, respondent No.9 herein, making a grievance that the five petitioners incurred a disqualification under section 44(1)(b) read with section 16(1)(ii) of the said Act by voting in favour of a matter in which they had an interest and a share. They, therefore, requested that the five petitioners be declared to have become disqualified to continue as Councillors. The petitioner No. 1, the President, is alleged to have incurred the disqualification by reason of being a deemed Councillor.

5. In response to the notices, by the Collector in this behalf, the petitioners explained on June 13, 1978 how they were not so disqualified. The petitioners inter alia explained that they were merely shareholders, in the Society and did not take part in the management. They also came out with the defence that Society was supplying electricity since long and passing of such a resolution was just a formality and entering into a contract in favour of the s.aid Society was an indispensable requirement of the residents of town Vita, the undertaking of the Society being the only source of supplying electricity for street lights. The Government was moved by the Council to require the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to take over the undertaking to avoid such contingencies in future. Petitioner No.1 raised an additional contention that the disqualifications prescribed for an elected Councillor do not apply to the President who is directly elected as such President under section 51 of the said Act and not as a Councillor and becomes only an ex-officio Councillor under section 2(7) of the said Act.

6. All these contentions were overruled by the Collector by his order dated 29-10-78. He declared all the petitioners to have become disqualified under section 44(i)(b) by virtue of having voted for the matter in which they had interest and further declared the seats to have fallen vacant under section 44(3) of the said Act. The petitioners' appeal to the State Government, respondent No. 12, was dismissed by an order dated August 14, 1980. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to this Court. At the admission stage, claim of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 was summarily rejected. Rule is granted only with regard to claim of petitioner No.1 whose case obviously stands on different footing.

7. Shri A. V. Savant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner No.1, does not dispute either that petitioner No.1 held shares in the Society or voted at the meeting for ratification of the contract with it. He, however, contends that under the amended Act, a p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document