D.G. Karnik, J.

1. As the elections to the post of the Chairman of the standing committee was required to be held expeditiously, we pronounced our order forthwith with a direction that the reasons would follow. We now proceed to give our reasons for the order.

2. By this petition the petitioner, a councillor of Municipal Corporation of Nashik, seeks a declaration that the action of respondent no.3 (the mayor of Municipal Corporation of Nashik) of nominating the respondent no.5, purporting to be from Shiv Sena quota, as a member of the standing committee of the municipal corporation to be arbitrary, illegal, null and void. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent no.3 to forthwith appoint the petitioner to be a member of the standing committee representing majority of the small registered political parties, in the light of the observations made in paragraph no.13 of the decision of the Full Bench in Jairam Tolaji Shinde Vs. The Secretary, Urban Development, Maharashtra State, 2010(3) Mh.L.J 465.

3. Nashik Municipal Corporation, the respondent no.2 herein, is constituted under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”). Its General Body consists of elected 108 councillors and the standing committee consists of 16 councillors. Party wise strength of the councillors in the respondent no.3 municipal corporation and the number of candidates to be nominated by the corporation party wise to the standing committee, as given by the petitioner in a table at the end of paragraph no.2 of the petition, is as follows:-

Sr.No. Party Name No. of Councillors Quota Seats

1. Shiv Sena 26 3.85 4

2. BJP 14 2.07 2

3. Congress 21 3.11 3

4. Rashtrawadi

5. MNS 12 1.77 2

6. Independents Group 9 1.33 1

7. BSP 3 0.44 -

8. RPI 2 0.29 -

9. LJP 1 0.14 -

10. Samajwadi Party 1 0.14 -

11. SKP 1 0.14 -

12. Communist 1 0.14 -

13. Independents 1 0.14 - TOTAL 15

4. The contents of the table are not disputed before us by any of the respondents and we would therefore assume them to be correct. There is no dispute between the parties that 15 councillors as mentioned in the said table are to be nominated by the first six largest parties mentioned in the table above. That leaves the seat of one of the 16 members of the standing committee unfilled. There is no dispute between the parties that the sixteenth seat of a member of a standing committee was required to be filled in by nomination of one of the independent councillors or the councillors belonging to smaller parties who were not represented on the standing committee as per the provisions of section 31A of the Act as interpreted by the Full Bench in the case of Jairam Tolaji Shinde (supra). The dispute however is whether the respondent nos.2/3 erred in nominating respondent no.5 over the petitioner.

5. According to the petitioner, by his letter dated 1 March 2011 (Exhibit F at page 103 of the petition) he requested the respondent no.3 mayor to recommend his name to the General Body for nomination to the said sixteenth seat as representative of the smaller parties. Similarly, Samajwadi Party had also recommended his name vide letter dated 1 March 2011 (Exhibit F at page 102 of the petition). On the other hand, name of respondent no.5 Vandana Tiwari was recommended for nomination to fill up the sixteenth seat by Shiv Sena vide letter dated 1 March 2011 (Exhibit-G at page 103 to the petition). Mr.Anturkar submitted that since names of two persons were recommended to the respondent no.3 mayor for nomination to the post of sixteenth member of the standing committee, she ought to have placed both the names before the General Body which could have accepted one of the names. However, the respondent no.3 illegally put up only the name of respondent no.5 before the General Body which nominated her to the post of the sixteenth seat of the standing committee. Though number of grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.Anturkar pressed before u