IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
F.I. REBELLO,A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.
Mohammed Saleem Vali Mohd Qureshi - Appellant
Versus
State (at the instance of Nijampur Police Station) - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No.947 of 2008 with Criminal Application No.163 of 2008 with Criminal Application No.188 of 2008
Decided On : 10/07/2008
A Councillor even if he is chargesheeted for serious offences, does not cease to be a Councillor except in terms of the statutory provisions. The disqualifications after being elected, are as set out under Section 11. There is no provisions under the BPMC Act which holds that the Councillor after being elected, if he is charge-sheeted ceases to be Councillor. This Court is these circumstance will have to balance the rights of a Councillor to attend the meeting and the consequence of such temporary release.
Court cannot deny a Councillor in the absence of any material showing that public order would be affected, to prevent such Councillor from appearing at one such meeting. It is clear that this would depend on the facts of each case and Court do not construe Section 11(c) to mean that this Court in every case must allow such attendance. This Court must bear in mind the public interest as also law and order.
Oral Judgment: (F.I. Rebello, J.)
Rule. Heard forthwith.
The Petitioner is an elected member of Bhiwandi Nijampura Municipal Corporation. The first meeting of the Corporation after the general election was held on 13.06.2007. On 28.5.2007, the Petitioner was arrested by the Officers of the Nijampura Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 (II) of I.P.C. read with Section 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, in connection with C.R. No. I/85/2007. The chargesheet has been filed before the Sessions Court, Thane vide Sessions Case No. 361 of 2007 and the matter is pending before the court. The Petitioner since his arrest has been unable to attend the meeting of the civic body except on 17.11.2007 when according to Petitioner he was allowed to attend with due permission pursuant to the order passed by this court. The facts also reveal that the Petitioner was allowed to sign the muster roll on 16.6.2008 pursuant to the order of the court dated 16th June, 2008.
2. That order passed on Criminal Application No. 3761 of 2007, by the learned Single Judge, reads as under:
"The Respondents are directed to take the applicant to Bhiwandi Nijampura Mahanagarpalika, Bhiwandi on 17.11.2007 to attend the meeting at 4.00 p.m. on that day with adequate police escort and after the applicant signs the roster, he shall be taken back to the premises where he is detained."
This court was further pleased to direct the applicant to deposit Rs.5,000/- with Nizampura Police Station, Bhiwandi towards the expenses of police escort.
3. This Petition thereafter came to be filed before this court wherein reliefs prayed amongst others are by way of mandamus to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to take the Petitioner to Bhiwandi Nizampura Municipal Corporation Headquarters on 29.4.2008 under police escort to enable him to attend civic body general meeting and sign the roster on such terms and conditions as the court deems fit and proper. Further relief is to take the Petitioner to Bhiwandi Nizampura Municipal Council Headquarters at the interval of every month under police escort to enable him to attend the meeting and sign the roster on such terms and conditions as this court may direct.
4. Petitioner’s case is that since 17.11.2007 the Municipal Corporation held several meetings. On account of his incarceration has been deprived of attending those meetings. The Petitioner had applied before the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge for permission to attend the meeting on 26.3.2008. It was rejected on the same day for the reasons set out in the order. It is contended that the rejection was based mostly on the reasoning given by the learned Judge that if the applicant/accused is allowed to attend the meeting, it may lead to trouble in Bhiwandi city. The court also noted that if the applicant/accused is prevented from attending the said meeting, there is no possibility of disqualification of his Corporatorship. Since 17.11.2007 the period of six months would expire on 17.5.2008 and as such the Petitioner would stand disqualified if he fails to attend the meeting for the period of six months from 17.5.2008. The civic body does not have predetermined programmes for its meetings and some time very short notice is given for the meeting. In these circumstances, considering the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "B.P.M.C. Act") Petitioner should be allowed to attend the meeting for both purposes i.e. to exercise his right as an councilor as also so that he does not stand disqualified.
5. A reply has been filed by the Assistant Police Commissioner pointing out the various cases, numbering in all 10 for various offences which are pending against the Petitioner apart from Sessions Case No. 361 of 2007. As on 16.5.2008 the period of six months as prescribed under the provisions of the B.P.M.C. Act in terms of Section 11(6)(c) has already expired and the Petitioner sta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.