SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7554

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar, G.S. Kulkarni, Bharati Danger, JJ
SHRI. PRAKASH RAMCHANDRA PATIL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. – Respondent
WP/11557/2016



2024:BHC-AS:28584 JPP 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11434 OF 2016

1. Shri. Kumar Gorakhnath Shinde Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business R/at 254, Bony View Bungalow Mahabaleshwar, District — Satara. 2. Shri. Sandeep Vasant Salunke Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business R/at 445, Mari Peth, Mahabaleshwar District – Satara.

3. Sou. Sangita Dattatraya Wadkar Aged 38 years, Occ. Household R/at Shivprasad Bungalow, Opposite Hotel Anarkali Mahabaleshwar, District – Satara.

4. Sou. Sureskh Prashant Aakhade Aged 30 years, Occ. Household R/at 67, Ranjanwade, Mahabaleshwar, District – Satara.

5. Sou. Ujjwala Ratikant Toshniwaal Aged 58 years, Occ. Household R/at 59, Dr. Sabne Road Mahabaleshwar, District – Satara.

6. Leela Nandkumar Mankumare Aged 38 years, Occ. Household R/at 17, Shri. Gurudatta Housing Society, Mahabaleshwar, District – Satara.

JPP 2

7. Sou. Vimal Pandurang Parte Aged 51 years, Occ. Household R/at 289, Mari Peth, Hotel Ashoka Inn, Mahabaleshwar, District – Satara. … Petitioners.

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra.

2. The Collector, District- Satara, Satara.

3. Shri. Dattatraya Maruti Bavlekar Aged 65 years, Occ. Business And Agriculturist), R/at Hotel Sunny International, Majjid Road, Mahabaleshwar, District- Satara.

4. Mahabaleshwar Municipal Council, Mahabaleshwar, Dist. Satara. … Respondents.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11557 OF 2016 Shri Prakash Ramchandra Patil Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business.

R/at 74, Dr. Sabne Road, Mahabaleshwar, District- Satara.

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra.

2. The Collector, District- Satara, Satara.

3. Shri. Dattatraya Maruti Bavlekar Aged 65 years, Occ. Business JPP 3 And Agriculturist), R/at Hotel Sunny International, Majjid Road, Mahabaleshwar, District- Satara. … Respondents.

Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishwajit Mohite, Mr. Siddharth Karpe, Mr. Akshay Shinde,Mr. Ketan Joshi and Ms. Sneha Bhange for the Petitioners in WP-11434/2016.

Mr. Vijay Patil with Mr. Vishwajit V. Mohite, Mr. Siddharth Karpe, Mr. Akshay Shinde, Mr. Ketan Joshi and Ms. Sneha Bhange for the Petitioner in WP-11557/2016.

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader, Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP, Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP, and Jay Sanklecha for Respondent Nos.1 and 2- State in both petitions.

Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh,Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, Mr. Yatin Malvankar, Mr. Atharva Date, Mr. Sumit Sonare, Mr. Sharad Dhore i/b. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Dilip Bodake with Ms. Shraddha Pawar for Respondent No.4 in WP-11434/2016.

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, G.S. KULKARNI, BHARATI DANGRE, MANISH PITALE AND AMIT BORKAR, JJ.

Reserved On: 10 October 2023.

Pronounced On: 16 July 2024.

JPP 4 Judgment (Per Nitin Jamdar, J.) :-

The question this larger Bench is called upon to answer is whether a councillor who has contested the elections of a Municipal Council as an independent candidate and has formed/become part of an Aghadi registered pursuant to the second Proviso to Section 63(2B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 is governed by Section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 for all purposes for all meetings as a member of such Aghadi till the term of the Council, or such an Aghadi is for a restricted purpose such as only for subject committees. Reference is made by the single judge of this Court doubting the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shah Faruq Shabir and Ors. vs. Govindrao Ramu Vasave and Ors.1, holding that the Aghadi registered under second Proviso to Section 63(2B) is for a restrictive purpose. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether the Aghadi under Section 63(2B) is intended for specific or all-encompassing purposes. The resolution of this dispute hinges on the interpretation of the above statutory provision.

2. The relevant statutory framework under consideration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top