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

2001 Supreme(Bom) 316

N.V.DABHOLKAR, B.H.MARLAPALLE
Mohansingh Tanwani & others – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others – Respondent


Judgment

B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---All these petitions have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29th of November, 2000 passed by the Minister of State for Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra under section 313(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Maharashtra Municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, Municipalities Act). By the said order the Municipal Council at Dhule came to be superseded by the Government. The Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2000 has been filed by two sitting Councillors and Writ Petition No. 5142 of 2000 has been filed by the three sitting Councillors, whereas Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 has been filed by the President of the Municipal Council, Dhule. By our interim order dated 1st December, 2000 the impugned order was stayed and, therefore, the elected body continued to be in office, including its President during the pendency of these petitions.

2. On behalf of the State Government the Joint Secretary from the Urban Development Department of the State Government has filed an affidavit in reply in Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 to which the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. The said reply by the Go















































































































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