The petitioners before this Court are questioning the suspension of nominations to its Standing Committee by Municipal Corporation, Akola, in its meeting dated 28.02.2011 by Respondent No. 1 – State Government under Section 451 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act). The nominations have been made under Section 31A(2) thereof.

2. After the petition was filed before this Court on 11.03.2011, this Court issued notices to the respondents and on 25.03.2011 ordered status quo till the hearing of the matter for admission. On 20.04.2011, the contention about Section 451 were noted and Respondents No. 1 & 2 then agreed to comply with the procedure under Section 451 and follow principles of natural justice. In view of this, the matter was kept pending and Respondents No. 1 & 2 were permitted to hear the petitioners. Accordingly, State Government passed further appropriate orders on 25.05.2011 and maintained its earlier order dated 08.03.2011. Petition was then amended on 03.06.2011 to raise challenge to this later order dated 25.05.2011. In this background, we have heard matter finally by making Rule returnable forthwith at the request of Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Municipal Commissioner and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

3. According to Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel, issue is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 22.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2010, where this Court found that consultation envisaged under Section 31A in the process of nomination is a political question and this Court is not expected to decide the same in exercise of its power of judicial review. This Court also found that said consultation is part of process of nominating Councillors and Legislature has not laid down any mode and manner for its exercise. The said consultation is, therefore, held to be not mandatory.

4. In this background, when meeting was conducted on 28.02.2011 & nominations were done, instead of approaching this Court in the matter, Respondent No. 4 knocked the doors of State Government by invoking Section 451 of 1949 Act and Government on 08.03.2011, for wrong reasons, suspended those proceedings. Further procedure as contemplated by Section 451(2) read with Section 451(3) was then completed which led to passing of similar orders on 25.05.2011. It is pointed out that the said decision is based upon Government circular dated 06.07.2010 and that circular cannot modify the procedure prescribed by Section 31A. It is contended that reasons given in the impugned order are noncompliance of procedure as contained in that circular and there is no provision in 1949 Act which permits the State Government to issue such circular in the matter of nomination by Corporation. The order is, therefore, stated to be without jurisdiction.

5. The judgment in the case of State of M.P. vs. Municipal Corporation, Indore, reported at AIR 1987 SC 1983, is relied upon to urge that Section 451 cannot be used to issue such circular. The judgment in the case of LaxmanDundappa Dhamanekar vs. Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti, reported at (2001) 8 SCC 378,is relied upon to point out the status of administrative circulars. It is pointed out that such circulars are administrative decisions, which can be issued only to fill in yawning gaps and as here in scheme of Section 31A, there is no such gap, the circular dated 06.07.2010 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Judgment of this Court in the case of SudhakarWaman Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2003 (1) Mh. L.J. 631is pointed out to substantiate the scope of Section 451. It is also urged that in any case, as it is nomination to fill in 1/6th vacancies which occur due to rotation in Standing Committee, it is part of election process and power under Section 451 of 1949 Act cannot