Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
P. V. Hardas and D. G. Karnik, JJ
CHANDRASHEKHAR s/o ROHIDAS DUSANE and another - Applicant
vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and others - Respondent
Advocate Appeared
For Petitioner were represented by R. N. Dhorde and V. D. Salunke Respondents were represented by S. K Kadam, A.G.P., S. T. Shelke, P. R. Katneshwarkar, V. D. Hon, V. P. Latange, A. D. Pawar, P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel, A. S. Sawant, Shekhar Naphade, Senior Counsel, R. S. Deshmukh
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Elections to the Office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rules, 2005 - Rule 3 Meeting for election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor Adjournment of meeting Consequently, second meeting was convened Second meeting cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a continuation of the first meeting nor an extension of the first meeting Election of respondents No. 7 and 8 in the truncated second meeting not sustainable in the eye of law as the convening of the second meeting itself was not legal.
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Elections to the Office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rules, 2005 - Rule 3(3) Special meeting for election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor Meeting can be adjourned by the presiding officer for a bona fide purpose. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Election Rules, 2005 cannot be construed that the outgoing Mayor/Presiding Officer cannot either cancel or adjourn the meeting and he is completely denuded of the said power. It would be too hypertechnical an approach to hold that the Presiding Officer did not have the power to adjourn the special meeting which had been convened. Various factors, considerations and circumstances may arise which would impel in adjournment or make the adjournment necessary. All these circumstances cannot be foreseen and, therefore, it would be extremely hazardous to hold that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is mandatory and, therefore, the Presiding Officer/Mayor did not have the power to adjourn the meeting which had been convened for the purpose of electing the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The underlying purpose of the Legislative mandate as found in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is to ensure that the special meetings which are convened for the purpose of electing the Mayor or Deputy Mayor are not adjourned in casual manner and the adjournments are not granted merely for the sake of asking. The magnitude of the situation must be such as to warrant an adjournment of the meeting. The circumstances prevailing then should, therefore, impel the Mayor/Presiding Officer to adjourn the meeting as transacting any business of the meeting should be rendered impossible. Therefore, the adjournment of the meeting must be for a bona fide purpose.
The meeting dated 29.6.2006 convened for election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the respondent No. 5 Corporation for some reason was adjourned. The minutes of the meeting clearly indicate that after the commencement of the meeting as scheduled, no business could be transacted on account of disturbance in the meeting and, therefore, adjourned the meeting. The meeting was not adjourned to any fixed date and, therefore, the meeting was adjourned sine die. Fact that a sizable number of Councillors/Corporators had left the meeting hall would clearly indicate that the meeting had been adjourned. Since respondent No. 3 had adjourned the meeting sine die, a fresh meeting could only be convened in accordance with the rules in this behalf.
P. V. HARDAS, J.:- Since the facts in both the petitions are identical, these petitions are decided by this common judgment. Rule. Rule made able forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these ions are, therefore, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioners praying For issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ directing respondents I and 3 to 6 to convene an adjourned meeting held on 29-6-2006 to any other appropriate date for transacting the business of adjourned meeting and for letting further stages of election to the office of Mayor. Alternatively it is d that the State Election Commission be directed to make appropriate Judgment to convene the adjourned meeting dated 29-6-2006 for the purpose
of holding the elections to the office of Mayor of respondent No.5 Corporation. also prayed that by a writ of prohibition or by an appropriate writ, respondents No.7 and 8 be restrained from acting as Mayor and Deputy Mayor. amendment the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice dated 14-7issued by respondents No.5 and 9 for convening the meeting on 28-7-2006 transacting the business as per the directions of respondent No.7.
3. In Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2006 the petitioners have prayed for similar and have additionally prayed for holding of the election to the post of Deputy Mayor. This Court by an ad interim order dated 18th July, 2006 granted to the meeting of Dhule Municipal Corporation which was scheduled to be on 20th July, 2006 at 11 A.M. This ad interim order was to operate till 2nd August, 2006. Thereafter the petition was heard for final disposal with the consent of Counsel and, therefore, the interim order came to be continued.
4. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2006, therefore, questions the election post of Mayor of Dhule Municipal Corporation and Writ Petition No. 2006 questions the election to the post of Deputy Mayor of Dhule M Corporation.
5. The brief facts as are necessary for the decision of these petitions stated thus :-
The petitioners in both the petitions are elected Councilors of respondent No.5 Corporation. The post of Mayor in the respondent No.5 Corporation reserved for O.B.C. category. Respondent No.3 was the Mayor of respondent No.5 Corporation while respondent No.4 is the Deputy Mayor of respondent No. 5 Corporation whose term of office came to an end on 30 Respondents No.7 and 8 claim to have been elected to the post of Ma Deputy Mayor respectively of the respondent No.5 Corporation.
6. Respondent No.5 Dhule Municipal Corporation has been establish 30-6-2003 and thereafter the general elections to the respondent Corporation were held on 13-12-2003 in which the present petitioners respondents No.7 and 8 along with others came to be elected as Co from different wards. The total strength of the Corporation consists of 67 members while 5 members are co-opted members and thus the total strength the Corporation is 72 members. According to the petitioners, 25 member, to Shiv-Sena, 6 members belong to B.J.P., 3 belong to Vikas Manch, 2 to N.C.P., 8 belong to Congress (I) and 4 are independent. The 5 Council. I have been co-opted have no right to vote in the election to the post of M Deputy Mayor. In the previous elections which were held in the year post of Mayor was reserved for general category and the election were 30-12-2003. In that election respondent No.3 came to be elected as a . it is alleged that he belonged to the Shiv Sena party. In the same respondent No.4 came to be elected as Deputy Mayor, who it is alleged to the Vikas Manch which is alleged to be an ally of the Shiv Sena parties. The term of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was of 2-1/2 years and, the term of office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor came to an end on 30-6- 2006.
7. The petitioners have alleged that in the meantime respondent Nos. 2 state Election Commission had issued directions which were published i
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
