The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, emphasizing the need for the State Government to follow the prescribed procedure for suspending the execution of a resolution or order of the Corporation.

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioner / a Sitting Corporator with the Latur City Municipal Corporation, has put forth prayer clauses B, C and D as under :-

"B. The respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to take appropriate action on the inquiry report dtd. 26/12/2019 submitted by the five members committee and against the erring concerned officers within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, by issuing writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, in the nature of writ of mandamus.

C. The respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to take disciplinary action for dereliction of duties by respondent No.2 by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of writ of mandamus.

D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the respondents may kindly be directed to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned erring officer of respondent No.3 in pursuance of the findings recorded in the inquiry report dtd. 26/12/2019 and further be directed to submit report to the registry of this Court."

2. We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Advocate alongwith learned Advocate Mr.A.V.Hon on behalf of respondent No.3 / Municipal Corporation. With their assistance, we have gone through the record made available before us.

3. Considering the material before us and the pleadings of the parties, that we are passing an order specifically interpreting the scope and ambit of Sec. 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act.

4. The petitioner herein had filed an application u/s 451 on 27/9/2017, addressed to the Hon'ble Minister of Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, contending that the order / agreement dtd. 8/9/2017 issued by the Commissioner of the Corporation on 14/9/2017 bearing No.8601/2017-2018, in favour of the President / Jan Aadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur be suspended or rescinded. It is an extensive application running into 21 pages. As no action was being initiated on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.13050/2018. By an order dtd. 16/1/2019, this petition was disposed off directing the Hon'ble Minister to decide the complaint / application of the petitioner dtd. 27/9/2017 in accordance with Law and the policy applicable.

5. There is no dispute between the learned Advocates that Sec. 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act is applicable to the case in hands. For ready reference, Sec. 451 is reproduced as under :-

"(1) If the State Government is of opinion that the execution of any resolution or order of the Corporation or any other authority or that the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of the Corporation of such authority is in contravention of or in excess of the powers conferred by or under this Act or any other law for the time being force, or is likely to lead to a breach of the peace or to cause injury or annoyance to the public or any class or body of persons, or is likely to lead to abuse or misuse of or to cause waste of municipal funds against the interest of the public 4[or is likely to be against the financial interest of the Corporation or against larger public interest the State Government may, by order in writing, suspend the execution of such resolution or order or prohibit the doing of any such act, for such period or periods as it may specify therein. A copy of such order shall be sent forthwith by the State Government to the Corporation and to the Commissioner or the Transport Manager.

(2) On receipt of a copy of the order as aforesaid, the Corporation or Commissioner or Transport Manager may, if it or he thinks fit, make representation to the State Government against the said order.

(3) The State Government may, after considering any representation received from the Corporation or Commissioner or Transport