Bombay High Court
Manish S/O Gendlalji Sahu And ... vs The Collector, Wardha And Others on 30 August, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp3829.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3829 of 2016
1. Manish s/o Gendlalji Sahu,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Near Gandhi Chowk,
Pulgaon,
Tah. Deoli and Distt. Wardha.
2. Sunil s/o Marotrao Bramhankar,
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Ghubad Toli, Pulgaon,
Tah. Deoli and Distt. Wardha.
3. Smita w/o Nitin Chavhan,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation - Housewife,
R/o Near Gandhi Chowk,
Pulgaon,
Tah. Deoli and Distt. Wardha.
4. Rajeev s/o Ramdattaji Batra,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Near Gandhi Chowk,
Pulgaon,
Tah. Deoli and Distt. Wardha.
5. Jaishree w/o Durgesh Barde,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Near Gandhi Chowk,
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2016 00:44:06 :::
2
wp3829.16.odt
Pulgaon, Tah. Deoli and
Distt. Wardha. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Collector, Wardha.
2. Municipal Council, Pulgaon,
Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha,
through its Chief Officer.
3. Rajan s/o Uttamchand Choudhary,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Bhawani Krupa,
Gandhi Chowk,
Pulgaon, Tah. Deoli and
Distt. Wardha.
4. Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress &
Sahyogi Paksh of Municipal
Council, Pulgaon, through
its Gat Neta- Rajan S/o
Uttamchand Choudhary,
R/o Bhawani Krupa,
Gandhi Chowk, Pulgaon,
Tah. Deoli and
Distt. Wardha. ... Respondents
Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1.
Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 30th August, 2016
wp3829.16.odt
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioners have been disqualified as the CouncilLors
of Municipal Council, Pulgaon, under Section 3(1)(a) of the
Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986
("the Disqualification Act") read with Section 16(1-A) of the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 on the ground that the
petitioners have voluntarily resigned from the aghadi, i.e.
"Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress & Sahyogi Paksh", which was
recognized as the aghadi.
3. The petitioners were the members of aghadi, i.e.
"Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress & Sahyogi Paksh", and it was a
post-poll aghadi, which fact is not disputed. The petitioners
contested the elections as the candidates set up by the Indian
wp3829.16.odt
National Congress and Shiv Sena. It is nowhere the case at least
made out in the order impugned that the petitioners have
resigned from their political party, which set up them as the
candidates for the elections for the post of Member of the
Municipal Council.
4. The controversy involved in the present case is covered
by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, rendered in Writ
Petition No.4323 of 2011 (Shah Faruq Shabir and others v.
Govindrao Ramu Vasave and others) on 29-6-2016. The Full
Bench of this Court has in clear terms held that the 'aghadi'
contemplated under Section 3(1)(a) read with Section 2(a) of
the Disqualification Act is a pre-poll aghadi. In view of this
decision, the controversy is no longer res integra, and the
impugned order passed by the Collector holding the petitioners
as disqualified, cannot, therefore, be sustained.
5. Inviting my attention to the Second Proviso below
sub-section (2-B) of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Municipal
wp3829.16.odt
Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act,
Dr. Anjan De, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.3 and 4, has urged that the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court on Section 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Act would not
apply to the facts of this case. The Full Bench has taken into
consideration the said provision also, and in para 50 of the
decision, it is held that the formation of aghadi or group in terms
of Section 63(2-B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar
Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act is totally irrelevant and
inconsequential for the purposes of election of President under
Section 51 as also election of Vice President under Section 51-A.
In the present case, we are concerned with the disqualification of
the Councillors, and hence the issue raised is also covered by the
decision of the Full Bench, cited supra.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order
dated 21-6-2016 passed by the District Collector, Wardha, in
Case No.2 of 2015, is hereby quashed and set aside. The
application filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for
wp3829.16.odt
disqualification of the petitioners as Councillors stands dismissed.
7. At this stage, Dr. Anjan De, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.3 and 4, prays that the judgment of this Court be
stayed for a further period of three weeks so as to enable the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 to approach the Apex Court to avail
further remedies. Since the matter is already covered by the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court, I do not find any reason
to stay the judgment of this Court. The prayer is rejected.
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
wp3829.16.odt
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : P.D. Lanjewar, PS
Uploaded on : 31-8-2016
