Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.A. SAYED, S.G. DIGE, JJ.
Ravindra Hemraj Dhangekar - Appellant
Versus
Ganesh Madhukar Bidkar & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2155 of 2021
Decided on : 28-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kapil A. Rathor a/w Mr. Harshad Mandke and Mr. Heenesh Rathod, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kadam, a/w Ms. Manjiri Parisnis, Mr. Milind Sathe a/w Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, Ms. Druti Datar, Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, i/b Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, a/w Mr. P.P. Kakade, Mr. Akshay Shinde, B Panel Counsel a/w Mr. R.M. Shinde, Adv
A NOMINATED COUNCILLOR IS NOT AN 'ELECTED COUNCILLOR' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 19-1A OF THE MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949 AND IS THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE APPOINTED AS LEADER OF THE HOUSE.
Headnote:
MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 19-1A - LEADER OF THE HOUSE - NOMINATED COUNCILLOR - ELIGIBILITY - INTERPRETATION - COURT HELD THAT A NOMINATED COUNCILLOR IS NOT AN 'ELECTED COUNCILLOR' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 19-1A AND UNLESS A PERSON IS AN ELECTED COUNCILLOR, IN THAT, HE IS DIRECTLY ELECTED AT WARD ELECTIONS, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE APPOINTED AS 'LEADER OF THE HOUSE' UNDER SECTION 19-A OF THE SAID ACT.
Fact of the Case:
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER A NOMINATED COUNCILLOR CAN BE APPOINTED AS LEADER OF THE HOUSE UNDER SECTION 19-1A OF THE MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT A NOMINATED COUNCILLOR IS NOT AN 'ELECTED COUNCILLOR' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 19-1A AND UNLESS A PERSON IS AN ELECTED COUNCILLOR, IN THAT, HE IS DIRECTLY ELECTED AT WARD ELECTIONS, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE APPOINTED AS 'LEADER OF THE HOUSE' UNDER SECTION 19-A OF THE SAID ACT.
Issues: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER A NOMINATED COUNCILLOR CAN BE APPOINTED AS LEADER OF THE HOUSE UNDER SECTION 19-1A OF THE MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT INTERPRETED THE TERM 'ELECTED COUNCILLOR' IN SECTION 19-1A AND HELD THAT IT REFERS ONLY TO COUNCILLORS WHO ARE DIRECTLY ELECTED AT WARD ELECTIONS. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON NOMINATED COUNCILLORS UNDER SECTION 2(11) OF THE ACT, SUCH AS THE INABILITY TO VOTE OR BECOME MAYOR OR CHAIRPERSON OF A COMMITTEE, INDICATE THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND FOR NOMINATED COUNCILLORS TO HOLD THE POSITION OF LEADER OF THE HOUSE.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE PETITION AND QUASHED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RESPONDENT AS LEADER OF THE HOUSE IN THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
JUDGMENT :
A.A. Sayed, J.
1. The issue that falls for consideration in the present Petition is - whether a nominated Councillor can be appointed as Leader of the House under section 19-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
2. The Petitioner is a Councillor elected at the Ward elections of the Pune Municipal Corporation held in February 2017. Respondent No. 1 is a nominated Councillor who is appointed as a Leader of the House in the Pune Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 2 is the Mayor of the Pune Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 3 is the Pune Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 4 is the State of Maharashtra.
3. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as Leader of the House in the Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’). The elections to the Corporation were held in the February 2017. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged as the largest party with 99 elected Councillors. The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) was declared as second largest party with 42 elected Councillors. 10 Municipal Councillors of Congress party and 10 Municipal Councillors of Shiv Sena party came to be elected.
4. Section 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) deals with the constitution of the Corporation. It provides that each Corporation shall consist of such number of ‘elected Councillors’ as mentioned in the table therein and ‘nominated Councillors’ not exceeding five having special knowledge and experience in the municipal administration can be nominated in the manner prescribed. In terms of Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2012 Rules’) in proportion to the strength of the House, BJP could nominate three Councillors, NCP could nominate one Councillor and Shiv Sena could nominate one Councillor.
5. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had contested the 2017 Ward elections of the Corporation from Ward No.16. The Petitioner secured highest number of votes and was elected to the Corporation. Respondent No.1 was the unsuccessful candidate. Even so, BJP proposed Respondent No.1 for his appointment as nominated Councillor. On 25 April 2017, Respondent No.1 was appointed as nominated Councillor in the Corporation. On 11 December 2020, in a meeting held of the Councillors of BJP, a resolution was passed appointing the Respondent No.1 as Leader of the Party (BJP) in the Corporation. Pursuant to the Respondent No.1 being appointed as Leader of the Party (BJP), he came to be appointed as Leader of the House under section 19-1A of the said Act, which appointment is the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.3-Corporation and learned Advocate General for Respondent No.4-State.
7. Before coming to the merits of the matter, we shall first deal with the contention on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the Writ Petition. It is contended that the Petitioner does not fall in the category of aggrieved person as no legal injury is caused to the Petitioner or no right of the Petitioner is infringed by the appointment of the Respondent No.1 as Leader of the House. It is contended that the Petitioner belongs to the Congress Party and the Respondent No.1 belongs to Bharatiya Janata Party and the Petition is filed only in an attempt to settle political scores. It is contended that the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had contested elections against each other and the Petitioner is harbouring a grudge since the Respondent No.1 came to b
