The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nomination process for municipal corporations requires consultation with specific leaders and parties, and the change in the Leader of Opposition has a specific effective date, impacting the validity of nominations.

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The petitioner – a candidate claims to be nominated and recommended by Congress Municipal Party as also the original Political Party (Respondent No. 6), has approached this Court, assailing removal of his name as nominee and inclusion of name of Respondent No. 9 in his place. The meeting for the purpose of effecting actual nomination, which results in berth on General Body of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, is scheduled tomorrow i.e. on 15.09.2017. It is not in dispute that the largest party in Nagpur Municipal Corporation being Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), has to nominate four persons while respondent No. 6 has to nominate one.

2. Considering the nature of controversy and urgency, we have heard the matter finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. Accordingly, we have heard Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Shantanu Khedkar Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri Deogade, Advocate for respondent No. 7 as also Shri F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, in support of the petition. Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Shri S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for respondent No. 8 and Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent No. 9, have opposed the petition.

3. It needs to be noted that the controversy about Leader of Opposition in terms of Section 191AA of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act), has been looked into by this Court, practically between the very same parties, while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017. The judgment has been delivered in the matter on 31.08.2017 and one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party thereto.

4. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate, in this backdrop submits that till 20.05.2017, when Respondent No. 4 – Mayor, recognized Respondent No. 8 as a Leader of Opposition, Respondent No. 7 – Sanjay was practically the Leader of Opposition from 04.03.2017 onwards for the purposes of Section 191AA of the 1949 Act as also Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors), Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 2012 Rules). The process for filling in nominated posts was initiated on 02.05.2017 and Respondent No. 7 – Sanjay was accordingly invited for meeting and deliberations on 04.05.2017. Because of these deliberations, nomination form has been filled in by present petitioner in prescribed formate on 18.05.2017 and that is recommended and supported by respondent No. 7. He contends that 18.05.2017 was the last date for submission of nomination papers and hence any change in situation thereafter, cannot affect this nomination paper as also recommendation since the situation had become irreversible after 18.05.2017. He is relying upon the language employed in Rule 5 of 2012 Rules to urge that consultation with the Leader of Opposition on that date i.e. 18.05.2017 is mandatory for all purposes and Respondent No. 7 happens to be such Leader of Opposition. He as also Shri Mishra, learned Senior Advocate have taken us through the order of Divisional Commissioner dated 19.05.2017 to urge that status of Respondent No. 7 – Sanjay as a Leader, representing the Congress Municipal Party, has been taken away prospectively on that day and as such on last day prescribed for nomination, Sanjay alone needed to be consulted and recommendation by him, therefore, needed to be acted upon. The language of Rule 5 of 2012 Rules is read out and our attention is invited to Section 31A of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Provincial Act) to contend that Scheme in both is pari materia. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kiran Ramchandra Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2013 (2) Mh. L.J. 433