A successive writ petition challenging the same cause of action and relief, after the dismissal of an earlier petition for non-joinder of parties, is not maintainable due to res judicata, laches, and delay.

Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL - RES JUDICATA - LACHES - DELAY - JUDICIAL PROPRIETY - CO-OPTION OF COUNCILLORS - MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1965 - SECTION 9 - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the co-option of Councillors to the Amravati Municipal Council, alleging that the rejection of their nominations was arbitrary, mala fide, and lacked authority in law. They also sought to declare section 9(l) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, ultra vires.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petition was not maintainable due to res judicata, laches, and delay. It found that the petitioners had participated in an earlier petition challenging the same co-option process, which was dismissed by the Court for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Court also found that the petitioners had not acted diligently in pursuing their remedy and had waited for the earlier petition to be dismissed before filing the present petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition was barred by res judicata? 2. Whether the petitioners were guilty of laches and delay? 3. Whether the Court should entertain the petition despite the earlier dismissal and the conduct of the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the doctrine of res judicata was not strictly applicable to the petitioners as they were not parties to the earlier petition. However, it found that the cause of action and the relief sought were identical in both petitions, and that the earlier dismissal operated as a bar to the present petition. 2. The Court found that the petitioners had participated in the earlier petition and had not taken steps to join themselves as parties. It also found that they had waited for the earlier petition to be dismissed before filing the present petition. The Court held that this conduct amounted to laches and delay, and that it would not be proper to entertain the petition. 3. The Court held that judicial propriety required it to uphold the earlier order of dismissal and not to permit the petitioners to circumvent it by filing a successive petition. It also found that the ends of justice would not be served by entertaining the petition, as the petitioners had an efficacious remedy under section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim injunction granted earlier.

JUDGMENT

MASODKAR J.-By the present petition the petitioners seek reliefs inter alia that the co-option of Councillors to the Amravati Municipal Council which met to co-opt six Councillors on December 30, 1974, should be declared illegal upon finding that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for that co-option is vitiated being arbitrary, mala fide as well lacking in authority in law relevant for that purpose. We may mention that in the prayer there is also a challenge to the legality of the provisions of section 9 (l) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 and it is prayed that it should be declared ultra vires. Petitioner No. 1 seeks to approach this Court mainly as the elected Councillor of the said Municipal Council while others rest their right upon the fact that they were duly nominated candidates for co-option and feel aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent No.2 acting as Presiding Authority in rejecting their nominations on the ground that they lack the qualification or otherwise are not eligible under section 9 of the Act to be the co-opted Councillors. The procedure with regard to co-option is regulated by the Maharashtra Municipal Council (Co-option of Councillors) Rules, 1967 Which prima facie permits calling for nominations, its scrutiny by the Presiding Authority and further voting by single transferable vote system. Petitioners claim that the co-option has been brought about in disregard and in violation of these rules.

2. Now few facts which are not in dispute and necessary to state for the purpose of our present premises are that the constitution of the Amravati Municipal Council was taken up by holding an election of 60 members in November 1974 under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. Section 9 requires and contemplates co-option of members. Initially a notice of meeting as required by section 9 (1) of the Act to co-opt 6 members to the Council was issued on December 19, 1974 and process of co-option was completed in the meeting of December 30, 1974. For the purpose of this co-option nominations were called for and in the scrutiny the Presiding Authority, respondent No.2, rejected the nominations of Sarvashri B.S. Pund (Petitioner No.2), S. B. Nagar (Petitioner No.4), K. M. Joshi, Afzal Hussain and G. L. Mudgal (Petitioner No.3). After withdrawal, 6 persons remained in the field and they were declared without any voting to have been co-opted. It may be mentioned that petitioners do challenge the motives of respondent No.2 in adjourning the meeting earlier called and further challenge the correctness of ~he proceedings as recorded.

3. Special Civil Application No.1 of 1975 was immediately filed in this Court on January 1, 1975, challenging all these steps and eventual process of cooption and we get from the record of that petition that as many as 25 Councillors including present petitioner No. 1 were the petitioners in that petition. That petition (Special Civil Application No.1 of 1975, Prabhakar and 24 others v. Collector, Amravati and 2 others) came up for bearing eventually and the Division Bench of this Court (Chandurkar and Dharmadhikari n.) by its order of February 13, 1975, dismissed the same holding that no relief could be given in the said petition for in that co-opted Councillors who were entitled to justify co· option on all possible grounds were not made parties thereto. It appears from that order that a request was made to grant time to join the co-opted Councillors as parties to the petition but the Court specifically refused the same. It was pointed out there that the said petition has been pending since January 1975 and since the holding of elections of the Councillors considerable time had elapsed and the Council is not being duly constituted, such a belated prayer cannot be granted. It was also observed that aggrieved petitioners had also an alternate remedy of the petition as provided by section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipalit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document