Rioting with damage to public property and assault on public servants constitutes moral turpitude under municipal disqualification provision; no stay of conviction without exceptional irreparable injury.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Bhosale, learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second application preferred by the applicant for a stay of his conviction.

3. First application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026, in which the reasons were given at length.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has now contended that while rejecting the earlier application, the court has taken into consideration the fact that there were no sufficient pleadings made and by way of the present application, the applicant has provided the details and presented a specific case. He therefore contends that, based on the material available on record, a second view can now be taken.

5. It is the case that the applicant cannot be appointed as co- opted member of the Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation, as the provisions of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act create a hurdle to his induction as a co-opted member. Section 10 of the said Act is reproduced below. More particularly, the relevant provision is Sub-Section (1), Clause (a):

“10. Disqualification for being a councillor:

(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 13, 9 and 404, a person shall be disqualified for being elected and for being a councillor, if such person -

….

(a) has been convicted by a Court of India of any offence involving moral turpitude, unless a period of six years has elapsed since the date of such conviction.”

6. Perusal of the aforesaid clause reveals that a person shall be disqualified from contesting the election and from being a councillor if such person is convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, unless a period of six years has lapsed from the date of conviction or, upon the expiry of such sentence, the disqualification incurred under this clause ceases. Further provision, which is not reproduced above, clarifies that the expiry of such a sentence shall not entitle a person to continue as a councillor or to stand for election at any by-election held during the remainder of the current term of the councillor.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant then invited my attention to Section 2 of Sub-Section 11 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, more particularly, definition of councillor which means a person duly elected as a member of the Corporation and includes a nominated councillor who shall not have the right, (i) to vote at any meeting of the Corporation and Committees of the Corporation; and (ii) to get elected as a Mayor of the Corporation or a Chairperson of any of the Committees of the Corporation.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012, more particularly Rule 4, which deals with the qualifications for nomination, and laid special emphasis on clause (g) of the said rule, which is reproduced as:

“4. Qualification for nomination A person shall be eligible for being nominated as a candidate for the office of the nominated councillors if he has special knowledge or experience in municipal administration and he, -

………

(g) has experience of not less than five years as an office bearer of a Non-Government Organisation registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, engaged in Social