MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners, being elected Corporators of the Latur City Municipal Corporation, have challenged the election of Chairman of Standing Committee of the Corporation, as also appointment of fresh members of the Standing Committee, on the ground that the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') were violated and that the election of the Chairman as also appointment of members of the Standing Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. The facts leading up to filing of the present Writ Petition are that, on 19.4.2017, election was conducted for electing members of the said Municipal Corporation. The first meeting of the elected members of the Corporation was held on 22.5.2017. In this meeting, the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and members of the Standing Committee were elected. Accordingly, the Standing Committee stood constituted on 22.5.2017.

4. As per Section 20(3) of the said Act, 8 members of the Standing Committee, being one half of the total number of 16, were to retire on the first day of the month in which the first meeting of the Corporation took place when the 16 members of the Standing Committee had been elected. In the present case, since the 16 members of the Standing Committee stood elected on 22/5/2017, the period of one year was to expire on 1.5.2018. As per Section 20(4) and (5) of the said Act, 8 members who were due to retire, were to be selected by lot and fresh members were to be appointed in a meeting to be held in the month preceding the date of retirement of the 8 members, which in this case, was 1.5.2018.

5. It is an admitted position that, neither the 8 members who were due to retire were selected by lot nor were fresh members identified for appointment to the Standing Committee prior to 1.5.2018. It is also an admitted position that since 1.5.2018 was a holiday, the appointed day for retirement of the 8 members of the Standing Committee was 2.5.2018. In the present case, interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 would determine whether the challenge raised on behalf of the petitioners should succeed. Reference will be made to the said provisions and interpretation of same hereinafter, but for the present, it would be sufficient to note that the requirements of Section 20 of the said Act were not satisfied insofar as selection of retiring members and appointment of fresh members in the Standing Committee before 2.5.2018 was concerned.

6. It has come on record that, no action was taken as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the said Act for selecting 8 members of the Standing Committee to be retired on 2.5.2018 before the said date and consequently, no action was also taken under Section 20(5) of the said Act for appointment of fresh members on the Standing Committee in any meeting held in the month preceding 2.5.2018. A meeting was held on 2.5.2018 chaired by the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent Municipal Corporation, where 8 members of the Standing Committee were identified for being retired. Minutes of the meeting were recorded. Thereafter, no further action was undertaken for appointment of fresh 8 members on the Standing Committee and it was only on 6.6.2018 that a notice was issued for conducting the process of appointment of fresh members of the Standing Committee on 14.6.2018. A notice dated 12.6.2018 was issued to all elected members of the Corporation to the effect that election would be held on 15.6.2018 for electing Chairman of the Standing Committee under Section 21(5) of the said Act.

7. The petitioners and some other elected members of the Corporation raised objection on 15.6.2018, when the meeting was held for electing Chairman of the Standing Committee under Section 21(5) of the said Act. The petitioners and some other elected members of the Corporation did not parti