I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26-11-2014 passed by the State of Maharashtra, thereby removing the petitioner from the position of President of Taloda Municipal Council under section 55-A and as a Councillor under section 55-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ("the said Act").

3. The learned Advocates for the respective sides have argued extensively on 2-12-2014, 3-12-2014, 5-12-2014, 8-12-2014, 10-12-2014, 11-12-2014, 18-12-2014 and 22-12-2014.

4. The submissions of the learned Sr. Advocate Shri Dixit on behalf of the petitioner can be summarized as follows :-

(A) The petitioner was elected as a Councillor of the Taloda Municipal Council, District Nandurbar for the first time in the year 2007 for a five year term to last upto 2012.

(B) The petitioner was once again elected as a Councillor for the said Municipal Council for the term of 2012 to 2017. So also, her husband Bharat Mali and her brother-in-law Laxman Mali were elected as Councillors.

(C) The petitioner was elected as a President of the Taloda Municipal Council in December, 2012.

(D) The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 14-8-2014 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against her under sections 55-A and 55-B of the said Act.

(E) The petitioner has stated in the petition in paragraph No. 15 that she suddenly received a notice of hearing dated 17-9-2014 directing her to remain present in the hearing on 22-9-2014.

(F) Copy of the complaint filed by respondent No. 4 herein was not served upon the petitioner.

(G) The letter issued by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, dated 26-12-2013 was not served upon the petitioner.

(H) The report of the Collector, dated 3-2-2014, was not served upon the petitioner.

(I) Respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 1157 of 2014 seeking directions to the Government to decide his complaint.

(J) The Division Bench by its order dated 6-2-2014 had directed the Government to consider the complaint of the fourth respondent in accordance with law.

(K) On 22-9-2014, the Advocate for the petitioner appeared before the Principal Secretary and orally sought a copy of the complaint filed by respondent No. 4 under section 55-B of the said Act. The said request was rejected.

(L) The learned Advocate for the petitioner orally sought an adjournment so as to study the papers on record. The said request was also rejected.

(M) The learned Advocate for the petitioner was compelled to submit a reply after inspecting the file in the Mantralaya. Accordingly, he hurriedly drafted the reply and filed the same before the Principal Secretary.

(N) On 26-11-2014, the respondent - State delivered the impugned judgment and removed the petitioner as a President of the Municipal Council under section 55-A of the said Act, as also as a Councillor under section 55-B of the said Act.

(O) The grounds for removing the petitioner as a Councillor are based upon certain Resolutions passed on 25-2-1980, 29-7-1995 and 10-7-1996. The petitioner was not a Councillor or President as on date of the said Resolutions.

(P) The impugned order heavily relies upon the report submitted by the Collector, copy of which was never supplied to the petitioner.

(Q) The Resolution dated 25-2-1980 was passed thereby allotting the property belonging to the Municipal Council in Survey No. 502, to Smt. Vimalbai Baban Suryawanshi, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner, on lease for 99 years, on behalf of the petitioner's husband and three brothers-in-law.

(R) The Resolution dated 29-7-1995 was passed for allotting a portion of City Survey Nos. 3075 and 3181 to Shri Laxman Babanrao Mali, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The lease over the said land was for a period of 99 years.

(S) The Resolution dated 10-7-1996 was passed by the Municipal Council for allotting a portion of CTS