2003 Supreme(Bom) 488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
Naik A.B. Patil N.H., JJ.
Deep Narayan Chavan others .... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others .... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2001 and W.P. No. 359 of 2002 with Civil Application Nos. 2018 6353 of 2002, decided on 22-4-2003.
judgment-
Advocates appeared :
R.N. Dhorde, i/b., N.V. Gaware, for petitioners.
Gulam Vahanwatti, for Maharashtra State.
R.B. Raghuwanshi, S.C. with E.P. Sawant, G.P., for respondents No. 1 to 3.
B.T. Bodkhe, i/b. S.B. Deshmukh, for respondent No. 4.
S.T. Shelke, for respondent No. 5.
A.D. Shinde, for respondents No. 6 to 9 absent.
Headnote:Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 - Section 341 - Extension and constitution of municipal corporation. - Once municipal corporation comes into existence the existing municipal council will cease to function and councillors will vacate office. The expression "unless sooner dissolved" used in Section 341 makes it clear. Hence interim orders of High Court allowing election of muni- cipal council need not be interfered with.
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.243(p)(g), Art.243(q)(2), Art.243(u)
MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL COUNCILS NAGAR PANCHAYAT AND INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP ACT : S.341
Question No. (1) : Whether any hiatus between abolition of Municipal Council and Constitution of Municipal Council and Constitution of Municipal Corporation is violative of Constitution of Part IXA. (This question is not raised in these petitions).
(2) The effect of census figures published being called provisional.
(3) Whether the population of Jalgaon was denied and effective opportunity of raising objections and hence the principles of natural justice were violated.
(4) Want of consultation with the Municipal Council effect.
2. When we commenced the hearing of these petitions and before we concluded the hearing Shri Rajendra Raghuwanshi, Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra has stated that there is no consultation with the Municipal Council, Dhule and in such situation in view of the answer to the question No. 4 by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case, the Government will consult the Municipal Council, Dhule and take appropriate decision. So far as Ahmednagar Municipal Council is concerned the learned Special Counsel submitted that before initiation of proposal of Municipal Council smaller urban area into a larger urban area the Municipal Council itself has passed a resolution requesting the Government of Maharashtra to convert the smaller urban area into a larger urban area and according to the learned Special Counsel there is sufficient compliance of consultation. In the latter part of hearing when the learned Advocate General stepped in and made his submissions he candidy submitted that both Municipal Councils namely Dhule Municipal Council and Ahmednagar Municipal Council were not consulted and for want of consultation the impugned notification required to be set aside and time bound programme be given be the Government to complete the process of consultation and after process of consultation with both the Municipal Councils as contemplated under section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, the notification as required under section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 will be considered. We will consider this concession little later, we now note the facts in these two petitions. The petition filed by the residents of Ahmednagar being earlier in point of time we will give facts in that petition first and then will refer to the facts in petition filed by the residents of Dhule.
3. Before proceeding further we note down following undisputed facts in both these petitions.
(a) Ahmednagar Muni