R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

1. 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. 2. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

.3. In Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2004, the petitioner seek relief in the form of direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz. Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Secretary thereof respectively to hold the regular proceedings of the. Standing Committee, by allowing the petitioner to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the said Corporation and for that the communication dated 26th February, 2004, issued by the Corporation in relation to the proceedings of the meeting held on 9th February, 2004 be quashed as well as for further direction to the Municipal Secretary to follow the procedure laid down for the

.proceedings for the Standing Committee and the writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No. 3 viz. the State of Maharashtra to exercise powers under Section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") in relation to the Resolution No. 238 dated 9th February, 2004, stated to have been passed in special general body meeting of the Corporation. In Writ Petition No. 2074 of 2004, the petitioner seeks to quash the notice dated 23rd March, 2004 issued by the Municipal Secretary, in relation to the meeting scheduled for 26th March, 2004.

.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the petitioner being elected as the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Corporation, due effect is not being given to the Resolution passed in the special meeting held on 9-2-2004 wherein the petitioner was so elected and the failure in that regard by the respondents, entitles the petitioner to seek the relief asked for. It is his further contention that considering the provisions of the said Act, Municipal Commissioner has no power to preside over the meeting of the Standing Committee for whatsoever reason and it is the petitioner who has been validly elected as the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Corporation in the specially convened meeting, held on 9th February, 2004, is entitled to preside over the meetings of the standing committee. The respondents authorities are bound to comply with the Resolution passed in the special meeting and to follow the procedure prescribed by the provisions of law, contained in the said Act, in relation to the proceedings of the meetings of the Corporation and the Standing Committee of the Corporation and considering the same, the notice issued by the Municipal Secretary on 23rd March, 2004, is bad in law. Referring to Section 35 of the said Act, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings of

.the meeting, held on 9th February, 2004, are to be held as good and valid until the contrary is proved and the respondents having not been able to prove and establish to the contrary, the respondents are not entitled to act contrary to the resolution passed in the said meeting. The provisions of Section 448 by themselves empower the government to require the performance of the duties in default of any Municipal authorities and to issue directions in that regard to its officers, but there has to be a direction in that regard by the government, Further referring to the provisions contained in Clause 3(e) of Chapter II of Schedule D of the said Act, it is sought to be contended that it is the Chairman of the Standing Committee, who is the sole authority, empowered to preside over the meetings of the Standing Committee and the Municipal Commissioner cannot divest the Chairman from those powers.

.5. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended that the meeting held on 9th February, 2004, was adjourned by the Mayor on account of certain commotion having been occurred in the proceedings of the meeting and that, therefore, any Resol