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

2004 Supreme(Bom) 136

H.L.GOKHALE, F.I.REBELLO
Noorjahan M. Aslam Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - GOKHALE H.L., J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27th May, 2003 passed by the Commissioner, Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation-respondent No. 3. This order declares that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Municipal Corporation in view of the provisions of section 10(1)(i) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, "BPMC Act"). This amendment came into force on 12th September, 2000 and it provided that a Corporator will be disqualified, if he or she has more than two children.

3. The grievance of Mr. Dhakephalkar appearing for the petitioner, apart from the submissions on merits, is that under the amended Act, the authority to decide such a dispute is a Judge of the Court of Senior Division. This submission is made on the basis of section 12 of the BPMC Act read with definition of a Judge as occuring under section 2(29) of the BPMC Act. Section 12 of this Act reads as follows :--

"12. (1) If any doubt or dispute arises whether a Councillor has ceased to hold office as such under section 11, such Councillor or any other Cou








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