2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of he Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.6.2007 passed by the State Government disqualifying and removing him from the post of President of Nallasopara Municipal Council. The order is passed under Section 55A and 55B OF the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils) (Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships) Act, 1965. (for short, the Act)

3. The facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner was elected as a President of the Council in the election held on 10.4.2005. He continues to be the President of the Municipal Council. It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent no.4 alleging that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised construction. One Rakesh Madhukar Zaveri made similar complaint. The Government did not take any action initially on the complaints and even the Collector, Thane rejected the representation of the said, Rakesh Zaveri.

4. Respondent no.4 filed Writ Petition being Writ etition No. 366 of 2006 before this court seeking a direction to the Government to take action on the complaint. A direction was issued by the Division Bench in the said Writ Petition to the Collector, District-Thane to submit report to this court. A report was submitted on 23.01.2007 by the Collector. It appears that this court disposed off the Writ Petition by directing that the Government should take a decision after hearing the parties. Thereafter, Show Cause Notice was issued on 31.2.2007 to the petitioners.

5. A reply was filed by the petitioner denying all allegations. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Minister of State (Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra and he has passed the impugned order.

6. Mr. Jahagirdar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that, the impugned order is contrary to law. He submits that the First Respondent has erred in disqualifying the petitioner. He submits that there is no case made out either under Section 55A or Section 55B of the Act. He submits that the entire action is politically motivated. He submits that the Show Cause Notice and the allegations are based upon something which has no connection with the petitioner’s duties and functions as a President of the Council. Relying upon Section 55A, it is contended that the Section applies to the post of President. Any action or act of omission or commission as a President falls within the purview of the said provision. That alone would be covered by the same. There is no question of the petitioner being disqualified for the acts allegedly committed when the petitioner was not the President of the Council. In other words, the acts complained of, must have some nexus with the duties of the petitioner as a President and the exercise of powers in that behalf. He submits that the acts alleged in the Show Cause Notice have no connection or bearing with the petitioner’s functioning as a President. In this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone.

7. Mr. Jahagirdar, has submitted that assuming without admitting that the acts alleged during the course of the petitioner’s term as a Councillor could be made subject matter of proceedings, still, in the present case the said acts cannot be falling within the purview of Section 44(1)(e) so as to disqualify the petitioner.

8. Mr.Jahgirdar submits that the true facts with regard to the alleged unauthorised construction are as under:-

9. That the property on which the structures are situated and alleged to be unauthorized, was sold and transferred against the entire consideration having been received and possession was handed over way back in the year 1998 by the petitioner and his partner to one Shubham Constructions under an Agreement dated 20th June, 1998 and the said property further changed hands and was ultimately transferred by the said M/s. Shubham Constructions to one Vinay Tambe also in the year 199